SCOTUS Will Not Decide Inequitable Conduct

Written by Chris Mammen
Posted: April 27, 2009 @ 6:02 pm

Dr. Chris Mammen

Today, the Supreme Court denied certiorari in Aventis v. Amphastar (Docket No. 08-937). Inequitable conduct was the sole issue presented in the cert petition, which Aventis filed on January 23, 2009. According to the procedural summary in Aventis’ cert petition, the Federal Circuit held the patent on Aventis’ $2 billion-per-year drug to be unenforceable due to inequitable conduct because of an omission in a non-inventor expert’s declaration, which the expert was deemed to have committed intentionally because he should have known of the materiality of the omitted information. The Aventis cert petition criticized three aspects of the current doctrine: (1) the weakened intent element, where “gross negligence” or “should have known,” in combination with high materiality, is accepted as proof of intent to deceive; (2) use of the sliding scale where high materiality can be combined with a lesser showing of intent, and vice versa; and (3) the single, “drastic remedy of unenforceability,” as inconsistent with equitable principles. Citing inconsistencies in the articulation and application of the doctrine in the lower courts, including within the Federal Circuit, Aventis concluded its petition with a plea for reform:

This issue will not benefit from further percolation in the circuits. The split in the lower courts and within the Federal Circuit itself is deep and mature, and the Federal Circuit has exhibited a steadfast unwillingness to revisit the issue en banc. Four decades of confusion are enough. The question presented is ripe – indeed overdue – for this Court’s review.

With the denial of certiorari, attention turns back to whether inequitable conduct reform will be achieved via Congress’ pending patent reform legislation or the possibility that the Federal Circuit will grant en banc review of an inequitable conduct case.

About the Author

With over a decade of experience as a patent litigator in San Francisco and Silicon Valley law firms, Dr. Christian E. Mammen maintains a solo practice in Berkeley, California. His article, “Controlling the ‘Plague’: Reforming the Doctrine of Inequitable Conduct,” is forthcoming in the Fall 2009 issue of the Berkeley Technology Law Journal. A pre-publication version of the article is available on SSRN.

Related posts (automatically generated):

A Call to Reform Inequitable Conduct This Year
Dr. Chris Mammen focuses his practice on patent and related intellectual property litigation and appeals. Twenty years ago, in the 1988 Burlington case, the Federal Circuit expressed its displeasure with the frequent assertion of the inequitable conduct defense in patent litigation, famously calling it a “plague.” Later that year, in...
PTO Studying Therasense v. Becton Decision; Guidance Soon
Today the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) announced that it is carefully studying the important en banc decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in the case of Therasense v. Becton, Dickinson to assess how it may impact agency practices and procedures. The...
CAFC: Bad Actor Makes Bad Inequitable Conduct Law
Intent to deceive was admitted, if you can believe that, but as it turns out the prior art withheld, a prior sale, was not invalidating and would not have lead to an appropriate rejection by the Patent Office. Nevertheless, the prior sale of an earlier version of the invention in...
Federal Circuit Re-Settles Law of Inequitable Conduct
Judge Rader wrote: "Left unfettered, the inequitable conduct doctrine has plagued not only the courts but also the entire patent system." Chief Judge Rader would go on to say that materiality is a "but-for" test, and actually breathed real life into the intent requirement, saying: "Proving that the applicant knew...
PLI Update: Pharmaceutical and Biotech Patent Law
In this release, the authors (Kaye Scholer LLP’s Patent Group) update and expand Pharmaceutical and Biotech Patent Law with new discussion of many topics, including double patenting, inequitable conduct, product by process claims, attorneys fees under Hatch-Waxman and more. Table of Contents Table of Authorities Below is a synopsis of...
Federal Circuit Grants USPTO, GSK and Tafas More Time
Last Thursday I wrote regarding the USPTO, GlaxoSmithKline and Dr. Tafas jointly requesting an extension of time within which to either request reconsideration or rehearing en banc of the Federal Circuit’s decision in the claims and continuations saga. This morning I learned that the Federal Circuit has granted the requested...
Inequitable Conduct Ruling Gives Pleading Rules Real Teeth
Dr. Chris Mammen On August 4, 2009, the Federal Circuit decided Exergen Corp. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., et al., Case Nos. 2006-1491, 2007-1180 (Fed. Cir. 2009). In a post to this blog several months ago, I argued that Congress, the Supreme Court or the Federal Circuit should reform the doctrine...