Precision applied for a patent that interfered with Automotive’s patent. Precision falsified dates and information during the interference proceedings on their patent. Automotive at least suspected Precision of fraud in their application. Automotive brought this up to Precision’s attorney and Precision’s attorney withdrew. The new counsel for Precision settled with Automotive and Automotive became the owner of the patents that came out of the interference proceeding. Relations between Automotive and Precision declined and Automotive sought to enforce the patent they obtained from Precision, against Precision.
When Automotive sued to enforce their patent the district court denied damages saying that because Automotive knew of the falsified dates and information that Automotive’s conduct was inequitable, and Automotive could not sue for damages. The Appeals court reversed, and the Supreme court via a split decision, affirmed the district court’s determination that the patent was unenforceable due to inequitable conduct.
No comments:
Post a Comment