|
In United States patent law, a claim of inequitable conduct is a defense to allegations of patent infringement. Even in an instance when a valid patent suffers infringement, a court ruling on an allegation of infringement may exercise its power of equitable discretion not to enforce the patent if the patentee (the patent owner) has engaged in inequitable conduct. ==Specifics== Inequitable conduct occurs when a patent applicant breaches the applicant's duty of candor and good faith to the US Patent and Trademark Office while applying for a patent. This breach can include: :(a) failure to submit material prior art known by the applicant; :(b) failure to explain references in a foreign language or submit pre-existing full or partial translations of the references; :(c) misstatements of fact, including misstatements in affidavits concerning patentability; and :(d) mis-description of inventorship (authorship). See ''Therasense, Inc. v. Becton''.〔(Therasense, Inc. v. Becton ), Dickinson and Co., 649 F.3d 1276 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (en banc).〕 A reference is material if "there is a substantial likelihood that a reasonable examiner would consider it important in deciding whether to allow the application to issue as a patent."〔(37 CFR § 1.56 (1977) ), commonly referred to as Rule 56.〕〔(GmbH v. Materia Inc. ), USDC (D. Del), August 2011, Civil Action No. 09-cv-636 (NLH-JS).〕 The party asking the court to decline to enforce the patent, usually the alleged infringer, bears the burden of proving inequitable conduct to the court. The moving party must show by clear and convincing evidence that the patentee intentionally withheld or misrepresented information, and that the information was material.〔 Proven inequitable conduct in any claim can expose the entire patent to unenforceability. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Inequitable conduct」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|