The sources of our inquiry necessarily are court decisions.
The doctrine of ‘Inequitable conduct’ is based on the law of equity.
A finding of “fraud,” “inequitable conduct,” or violation of duty of disclosure with respect to any claim in an application or patent, renders all the claims thereof unpatentable or invalid.
It is the inequitable conduct that generates the unenforceability of the patent and we cannot think of cases where a patentee partially escaped the consequences of his wrongful acts by arguing that he only committed acts of omission or commission with respect to a limited number of claims.
Lex Tex Ltd., 747 F.2d 1553, 1561, 223 USPQ 1089, 1093-94 (Fed. In In re Multiple Litigation Involving Frost Patent, 540 F.2d 601, 611, 191 USPQ 241, 249 (3rd. 1976), some claims were upheld despite nondisclosure with respect to others. The gravamen of the fraud defense is that the patentee has failed to discharge his duty of dealing with the examiner in a manner free from the taint of “fraud or other inequitable conduct.” If such conduct is established in connection with the prosecution of a patent, the fact that the lack of candor did not directly affect all the claims in the patent has never been the governing principle.
When considering whether there is “mutual assent”, sometimes called a “meeting of the minds” which is required for a contract to be formed, one of the issues is the existence of conduct that invalidates assent.
Unformatted text preview: Intent to deceive(scienter) 3. Have reasonable reliance , has to be material fact a. Is it something that has an effect on your decision to buy or not?