• Home
  • About Me
    • Client Reviews
    • Patent Samples
    • Accolades
    • About Firm
    • Technologies
    • FAQs
  • Services
    • Patent Prosecution Services
    • Patent Defense Services
    • Patent Enforcement Services
    • Trademark Search Services
    • Trademark Prosecution Services
    • Trademark Enforcement Services
    • Trademark Defense Services
    • Patent and Trademark Licensing Services
    • Worldwide Patent and Trademark Services
  • Learning Resources
    • Invention Agreements
      • What is an NDA and when to use them?
      • How to use a contract to protect your invention?
      • Working with others without losing your IP rights
      • Patent Assignments for Independent Contractors
      • Losing Invention Rights When Hiring or Collaborating with Others
      • Avoid Problems: Get an Invention Assignment Agreement
    • Protect Inventions
      • Do you need to get your patent attorney to sign an NDA?
      • Patent protection benefits and why every inventor should consider getting one
      • Reasons to only market your invention after securing patent pendency
      • 8 tips to successfully protect your idea
      • Four types of intellectual property to protect your idea and how to use them
      • Can a confidentiality agreement protect me like a patent application?
      • Dangers of 1 yr grace period under first-inventor-to-file system
      • File a patent application before telling others about the invention
      • Risks and benefits of securing software patent protection
      • Strategy to overcome patentable subject matter rejection
      • Best uses for design patents
      • Overview of Patents and Intellectual Property
      • Pros and cons of filing a continuation-in-part application
      • Benefits of Patent Protection
      • Continuation patent application and related divisional and continuation in part
      • Misconceptions of Provisional Patent Applications
    • How Patent Applications Work: the Basics
      • How to respond to an office action?
      • Request for non-publication of a patent application
      • Anatomy of a Patent Document
      • How to write a broad patent application?
      • Design patents: pros and cons
    • Patent process
      • Overview of the examination process within the USPTO
      • What is a patent search and How to do it?
      • Patent attorneys, agents and the USPTO can help with the patent process
      • Highs and lows of securing patent protection for your invention
      • Patent Process: Invention to Patent Granted (Comprehensive)
      • Benefits of a Patent Search
      • Overview of Patent Process
      • Patent process timeline and major milestones
      • Patent process, overall steps and procedures
      • What is the Patent Office procedure after filing a patent application?
      • USPTO Website
    • Patent costs
      • How much does it cost to get a utility patent?
      • Provisional Patent Application: Cheap Alternative?
      • Patent Cost Framework and cash flow
      • Provisional patent application: a cheap option?
      • Cheap provisional patent applications
    • Worldwide patents
      • Pros and cons of securing worldwide patent protection and their steps
      • Foreign patent filing to secure protection in other countries
    • Responding to Office Actions
      • Overview of Office Actions
    • Patent infringement
      • Basics of writing a patent claim for a patent application
      • What are the patent marking requirements and its benefits?
      • Avoiding Patent Infringement
      • Can I Copy My Competitor’s Product?
      • Can I Copy My Competitor’s Product? (Design Patent)
    • Trademarks
      • Trademark Registration: common law, state and federal
      • How to obtain a federal trademark registration?
      • How to select a trademark?
        • Protect your idea when pitching to an investor, potential licensee, or buyer
  • Schedule Consultation
  • Contact

Patent Attorney | Orange County | OC Patent Lawyer

Orange County Patent Attorney

(949) 433-0900
You are here: Home / Patent Infringement / Patent Infringement Defenses / Inequitable conduct / Patent unenforceable for failure to disclose info to Patent Office

Patent unenforceable for failure to disclose info to Patent Office

November 3, 2014 by James Yang

Failure to disclose

Bottom Line: Inequitable conduct is an often raised defense but rarely successful.  As such, the courts have been shifting the burden of providing inequitable conduct so that the courts can get to the merits of the case more often.  The failure to disclose material information to the patent office that may lead the examiner to reject a patent application during patent prosecution is one of the ways that inequitable conduct arises.  the following is a discussion of the changing burden and how it plays out during litigation.

In 2011, the Federal Circuit significantly raised the bar to successfully win on a defense of inequitable conduct. Therasense (Fed. Cir. 2011). One of the reasons for raising the bar was that such claims were frequently alleged but rarely successful, causing the Court to expend a disporportinate amount of time to sort out the few successful claims that arose. Alleging inequitable conduct was also a way to paint the patent owner as a bad actor and thus distract the jury’s attention from the merits of patent infringement case. In American Calcar, Inc. v. American Honda Co (Fed. Cir. 2014), Honda raised the defense of inequitable conduct against Calcar’s allegation of patent infringement. Despite the higher standard to prove inequitable conduct, the District Court affirmed Calcar’s patent was obtained through inequitable conduct and held that the patent was unenforceable. The Federal Circuit affirmed.

Calcar creates “Quick Tips” booklets for automobiles. To create these booklets, Calcar test drives automobiles and takes photographs of the car’s dashboards and copies its manuals. Back in 1996, Calcar test drove an Acura RL with a navigation system. In these earlier models, automotive navigation systems were only used to provide navigational information (destinations, addresses and directions). Calcar in preparing its booklets for the 1996 Acura RL conceived of an invention wherein the multimedia system of the car would access vehicle information and control vehicle functions over and above basic navigational information.

In prosecuting Calcar’s patent application, Calcar disclosed the existence of the 1996 Acura RL navigation system but did not disclose the operational details of the navigational system even though such information was in Calcar’s possession.

Under Therasense, the defendant must prove inequitable conduct by clear and convincing evidence showing that the patent applicant “(1) misrepresented or omitted information material to patentability, and (2) did so with specific intent to mislead or deceive the PTO.” The materiality required to establish inequitable conduct is but-for materiality. Undisclosed prior art is but-for material if the PTO would not have allowed a claim had it been aware of it.

In deciding the materiality prong under Therasense, the Federal Circuit reviewed the District Court’s findings on the differences between the prior art and the claimed invention. The District Court found that the only difference was the nature of the information contained in the systems: navigational details (destination, addresses, directions) for the prior art versus vehicle information for the patent at issue. The District Court found the claimed invention to be obvious because the prior art and the patented invention perform the same function, i.e., delivery of information, in the same way, i.e., through an interactive display screen, to achieve the same result, namely providing information to the vehicle user.

This language is identical to the function-way-result test in analyzing the Doctrine of Equivalents for patent infringement which is not used by examiners in analyzing obviousness for patentability. Nonetheless, the Federal Circuit affirmed the logic of the District Court in using this type of analysis to prove that the undisclosed information was but-for material. The Federal Circuit noted that the District Court was merely using the function-way-result language to show that the differences between the prior art and the present invention were obvious. Hence, had Calcar disclosed the operational details of the 96RL, the patent office would not have allowed the patent. As such, the failure of Calcar to disclose the operational details of the 96RL navigation system was but-for material. Affirmation of the function-way-result language thus illustrates another way to show but-for materiality: but-for the patent owner’s failure to disclose some piece of information it had in its possession, the patent office would not have issued the patent.

On the issue of intent to deceive, the court affirmed the District Court’s decision that Calcar had an intent to deceive the patent office and found that it was the most reasonable inference from the evidence. In particular, the District Court found that the inventor possessed material information based on his own testimony about his personal knowledge of the prior art system, test drives of an automobile with the prior art systems and use of the figures from the manuals of such automobiles in preparing the patent application. Based on these findings, the District Court concluded that the single most reasonable inference was that Calcar deliberately decided to withhold the information from the PTO. The inventor also acknowledged the importance of the undisclosed information. As such, the Federal Circuit affirmed the District Court’s finding of intent to deceive, and also inequitable conduct.

As I read through this case, Calcar’s failure to disclose appears to be partly related to the difficulty of disclosing information that one observes in a competitor’s product when there is incomplete documentation produced by the manufacturer. An inventor may base his or her invention on an existing product. However, there may be incomplete documentation on one or more aspects of the existing product. Manufacturers do not document all aspects of the product. They may provide how-to manuals or installation manuals but the rest may be undocumented.

How does the inventor disclose information about the existing product without implicating, suggesting or making his or her own invention obvious? Typically, the inventor may provide a written description of what he or she observed in the competitor’s product. If the inventor discloses more than what he or she observed, then all of the inventor’s statements are considered as Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art which will be used against the inventor to show that the invention is obvious, and thus unpatentable. If the inventor discloses less than what he or she observed, then the inventor’s failure to disclose could be characterized as inequitable conduct, as in the instant case. There is no easy solution except to do your best at disclosing only what you know and nothing more, and if possible to obtain a more complete disclosure produced by the manufacturer.

I invite you to contact me with your patent questions at (949) 433-0900. Please feel free to forward this article to your friends. As an Orange County Patent Attorney, I serve Orange County, Irvine, Los Angeles, San Diego and surrounding cities.

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn

Filed Under: Inequitable conduct, Patent Infringement, Patent Infringement Defenses Tagged With: Failure to Disclose

Author: James Yang

Helping entrepreneurs and mid-size businesses since 2004. Call me at (949) 433-0900 to schedule your free initial consultation. Read More…

Covid-19

Covid-19: We are fully operational.  Due to Covid-19, all meetings are conducted via zoom.

Professional Profile

James Yang Business Patent Attorney

James Yang, Patent Attorney

James Yang is a patent attorney whose practice encompasses all area of intellectual law including patents, trademarks, copyrights and trade secrets. Professional Profile

Popular Posts

  • Patent process overview
  • Patent process explained
  • How much does a patent cost?

New Book Release

Navigating the Patent System - new book by Orange County patent attorney, James Yang

Navigating the Patent System: Learn the patent process and strategies to protect your invention

Read for Free
Buy at Amazon

Peer Recognition

top attorney patent application
client choice patent application
Rated by Super Lawyers
AV Preeminent rating

RECEIVE PATENT UPDATES

Stay up to date on major changes and get tips on patent prosecution.

We respect your privacy.

Popular Posts

Patent process overview
Patent process explained
How much does a patent cost?
Trademark process and costs
Patent process and costs

 

Services

  • Patent Prosecution Services
    Patent Defense Services
    Trademark Prosecution Services
    See All Services

Contact

James Yang
OC Patent Lawyer
2372 Morse Ave., Suite #178
Irvine, CA 92614
Tel: (949) 433-0900

Connect

  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn

Sitemaps

Sitemap: Pages | Sitemap: Posts

Terms of Use

By accessing this blog, you agree that no attorney-client relationship is formed except by a subsequent written retainer agreement. Also, you agree to not send confidential information unless directed by me to do so. The information posted on this blog is legal information and not legal advice.
Complete terms of use

ATTORNEY ADVERTISEMENT

© 2021 · James Yang, Your Entrepreneur and Mid-Size Business Patent Attorney