In the early 2000s, decisions issued from the Federal Circuit where the bar for inequitable conduct seemed to be set so low that many a patentee tripped over it based on what seemed to be nothing more than mistakes or oversight divorced from any intent to deceive. In other words, it seemed that an absolute liability standard for inequitable conduct was improperly being imposed. Even proof of good faith seemed insufficient to clear the bar if one uninformed in patent realities concluded with the benefit of hindsight that a patent agent or inventor "should have known" something.
Friday, February 6, 2015
Inequitable Conduct...
by Steve Reiss of www.reisspatents.com
In the early 2000s, decisions issued from the Federal Circuit where the bar for inequitable conduct seemed to be set so low that many a patentee tripped over it based on what seemed to be nothing more than mistakes or oversight divorced from any intent to deceive. In other words, it seemed that an absolute liability standard for inequitable conduct was improperly being imposed. Even proof of good faith seemed insufficient to clear the bar if one uninformed in patent realities concluded with the benefit of hindsight that a patent agent or inventor "should have known" something.
In the early 2000s, decisions issued from the Federal Circuit where the bar for inequitable conduct seemed to be set so low that many a patentee tripped over it based on what seemed to be nothing more than mistakes or oversight divorced from any intent to deceive. In other words, it seemed that an absolute liability standard for inequitable conduct was improperly being imposed. Even proof of good faith seemed insufficient to clear the bar if one uninformed in patent realities concluded with the benefit of hindsight that a patent agent or inventor "should have known" something.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment