• Subscribe

    Subscribe to the RSS feed Subscribe to the blogs's ATOM feed
    Add to your Google Home Page or Google Reader Add to your My Yahoo!
    Add to your My MSN Add to your My AOL
    Subscribe to the Comments RSS feed Add to your Bloglines
    Email Subscription



  • The opinions, commentary and characterizations provided to this online forum by the authors and moderators are provided for encouraging discussion, thought and debate on important post grant issues. These postings are in no way representative of the opinions of Oblon Spivak et al., or its clients.

Large Patent Reissue/Reexamination IDS Filings Driven By Inequitable Conduct Plague

Posted On: Sep. 20, 2010   By: Scott A. McKeown

Paperwork

The Fruit of the Poisonous Inequitable Conduct Tree= Mammoth IDS Filings

Last week, I commented on a recent ruling in Bendix Commercial Vehicle Systems LLC, et al v. Haldex Brake Products Corp., 1-09-cv-00176 (N.D.O.H) relating to patent resissue/recapture. In addition to the interesting recapture issues presented, this case also demonstrates why the USPTO must be continually burdened with mammoth IDS filings in post-grant proceedings.

Last week a further ruling was issued in this case on a summary judgment motion. Plaintiff Bendix requested summary judgment of NO inequitable conduct based on a multitude of defendant accusations relating to the plaintiff’s conduct during the patent reissue proceeding. Despite the plaintiff’s disclosure of litigation materials, expert reports etc, as well as the defendant filing their own carefully worded protest in the patent reissue proceeding, the defendant pointed to a single sentence of a deposition as being withheld from the USPTO….I couldn’t make this up.

In the September 14, 2010 decision (here), the defendant alleged three bases for inequitable conduct: 1) that the error identified for initiating the patent reissue was not a “mistake”; 2) that the defendant’s expert report submitted to the USPTO was not appropriately highlighted to the defendant’s satisfaction; and 3) that a single deposition statement was not brought to the attention of the USPTO, despite the fact that the statement never made it in the defendant’s expert report, or reissue protest.

The court properly rejected these theories, the discussion of which is not all that eventful (can be read in the above linked decision).

I simply draw attention to this inequitable conduct fact pattern because, sadly, it is not at all uncommon. With concurrent litigation, a significant concern of patent holders is “how much’ information needs to be submitted in a parallel post grant proceeding of the USPTO to satisfy 37 C.F.R. § 1.555(b)(2)?”

In other words, where does one draw the line? Dispositive motions? Validity and claim construction issues only, depositions, trial transcripts?  Where does it all end?  What if this information is subject to protective order?

ANSWER: typically, it ends in one big pile on the PTO doorstep, better safe than sorry.

Perhaps the upcoming en banc decision in Therasense will provide some much needed relief from this sillyness….

One Response to “Large Patent Reissue/Reexamination IDS Filings Driven By Inequitable Conduct Plague”

  1. Paul F. Morgan says:

    One of the main reasons ACCA was founded years ago by the [then, now deceased] Xerox Corporation GC was to encourage corporate counsel [whomever in the client company is supposed to be in charge of that litigation] to do a better hands-on job of controlling unnecessary litigation billing costs by outside counsels, such as excessive and unproductive depositions, motions, multiple-staffings, etc. Unfortunately it seems to me that there is still a great deal of the latter and not enough of the former.