Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_03-cv-00597/USCOURTS-azd-2_03-cv-00597-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 Patent Infringement

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc.; David

Goldfarb, M.D., 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc., 

Defendant. _________________________________

W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc.,

Counterclaimant,

vs.

Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc.,David

Goldfarb, M.D., and C.R. Bard, Inc.,

Counterdefendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 03-0597–PHX-MHM

ORDER

Following a jury verdict for Plaintiffs, Bard Peripheral Vascular and David Goldfarb,

M.D. (“Plaintiffs”), in this patent infringement case involving United States Patent No.

6,436,135 (the “‘135 patent”), W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc.’s (“Gore” or Defendant”),

inequitable conduct claims were tried to the Court during a bench trial that occurred on

December 7, 11, and 12, 2007. Since that time, the parties have filed post-trial briefs,

including proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, and have presented oral

Case 2:03-cv-00597-MHM Document 835 Filed 07/29/08 Page 1 of 83
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 2 -

argument. After considering the trial testimony, oral argument, and the papers submitted, the

Court enters this Order addressing the merits of Defendant’s claims of inequitable conduct.

Gore claims patent invalidity based on inequitable conduct. In support of its position,

Gore asserts seven claims of alleged non-disclosure, misleading disclosure, and false

statements during the patent application process that Gore argues support finding the patent

unenforceable. Specifically, Gore asserts it can prove the following claims to establish

inequitable conduct: 

1. Plaintiffs and their attorneys failed to advise the Patent Office of Dr. Volder’s

connections with Impra in his 1976 affidavit in which he expressed his opinion

on the issue of obviousness as a presumably impartial person skilled in the art.

2. Plaintiffs and their attorneys failed to advise the Patent Office at any time prior

to withdrawal of the rejection of Claims 1 to 10 of the Goldfarb patent

application, that in 1978 Lenox Baker, M.D., withdrew and repudiated

paragraph 6 of his 1976 affidavit filed with the Patent Office. 

3. The filing of and reliance on two 1976 affidavits from D. Dan Detton,

notwithstanding Mr. Detton’s repudiation of those affidavits before they were

filed, and Plaintiffs’ subsequent failure to advise the Patent Office of Mr.

Detton’s 1978 repudiation of his 1976 affidavits.

4. Plaintiffs’ reliance on an error that the Patent Office made in connection with

the Matsumoto publication in Surgery, in which the Patent Office Examiner

mistakenly interpreted the wall thickness in that publication to be 1 millimeter

(“mm”) rather than 0.5 mm. 

5. Plaintiffs and their attorneys failed to provide information to the Patent Office

about Dr. Volder’s work and his possible role as an inventor or co-inventor,

including the failure to disclose the existence of and the subsequent destruction

of the Volder notebook. 

6. Plaintiffs’ and their attorneys’ failed to comply with the Patent Office order

Case 2:03-cv-00597-MHM Document 835 Filed 07/29/08 Page 2 of 83
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 3 -

requiring production of material information from the Goldfarb v. Impra

litigation. 

7. Plaintiffs and their attorneys failed to advise the Patent Office Examiner of the

existence of the Gore shipping log, which contained information about prior

art vascular graft wall thicknesses that was inconsistent with the 1976

affidavits of Harold Green and Mr. Detton, and inconsistent with the argument

made by Dr. Goldfarb and Mr. Sutton in persuading the Patent Office

Examiner to withdraw the November 1975 rejection of Claims 1 to 10.

FINDINGS OF FACT

I. PRE-INTERFERENCE EX PARTE PROSECUTION OF THE GOLDFARB

APPLICATION

A. FORMATION OF IMPRA

1. In approximately May 1974, Dr. Goldfarb and others, who would later become

associated with a company called International Medical Prosthetics Research

Associates, Inc. (“Impra”), retained attorney Samuel J. Sutton to assist them in

preparing a patent application. Trial Tr., 12/7/07, at pp. 3830-31 (Sutton).

2. One of the reasons Impra retained Mr. Sutton was to help it get a patent on the ePTFE

graft. Trial Tr., 11/30/07, at p. 2598 (Sutton). Impra determined that such a patent

was critical to its survival. Trial Tr., 12/5/07, at p. 3204 (Gall).

3. In the course of preparing the patent application, Mr. Sutton conducted a thorough

investigation into inventorship, during which he met with J.G.R. Volder, M.D.,

several times between June and August 1974 for the purpose of investigating

inventorship. Trial Tr., 11/30/07, at p. 2597 (Sutton). Mr. Sutton also met

extensively with Dr. Goldfarb, who gave Mr. Sutton full access to his laboratory

research. Trial Tr., 11/07/07, at pp. 416-17 (Goldfarb); Trial Tr., 11/30/07, at pp.

2601-04 (Sutton).

4. In September 1974, there were many claims and contenders for the position of

Case 2:03-cv-00597-MHM Document 835 Filed 07/29/08 Page 3 of 83
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 4 -

inventor, including Dr. Goldfarb and Dr. Volder. Trial Tr., 12/7/07, at p. 3826

(Sutton); Trial Tr., 11/7/07, at pp. 415-16, 588 (Goldfarb); Trial Tr., 11/30/07, at pp.

2606-07 (Sutton). 

5. Mr. Sutton and Impra were concerned in the summer of 1974 that the University of

Utah might have an ownership claim to the ePTFE patent if Dr. Volder were the sole

inventor or even a co-inventor. Trial Tr., 11/27/07, at pp. 1976-77 and 1983-85

(Baker); Trial Tr., 11/30/07, at pp. 2598-99 (Sutton). 

6. At that same time, Mr. Sutton also was concerned about Dr. Goldfarb’s relationship

with Arizona State University and the Arizona Heart Institute (“AHI”) and whether

either entity may have an ownership claim to the patent application Mr. Sutton was

preparing. Trial Tr., 11/30/07, at pp. 2598-99 (Sutton). 

7. On September 4, 1974, Mr. Sutton received a letter from William H. Drummond, Dr.

Volder’s personal attorney. DX3048. In that letter Mr. Drummond asserted that “Dr.

Volder has kept some fairly accurate and complete records of conception, reduction

to practice and diligence . . . [which] leads me to the opinion that Dr. Volder is the

sole inventor.” Id.

8. After receiving Mr. Drummond’s letter, on September 9, 1974, Mr. Sutton met with

Drs. Volder and Goldfarb, as well as Don Gall, M.D., Mr. Harold Green, and Richard

Mendenhall, to discuss the draft patent application and to investigate inventorship.

Trial Tr., 11/07/07, at pp. 412-19 (Goldfarb); Trial Tr., 11/27/07 at pp. 2003-04 (H.

Green); Trial Tr., 11/30/07, at p. 2604 (Sutton); Trial Tr., 12/05/07, at pp. 3191-92,

3197-99 (Gall).

9. At the conclusion of this meeting it was unanimously agreed by all attendees, without

objection, that Dr. Goldfarb was the sole inventor. Trial Tr., 12/05/07, at pp. 3191-92,

3197-99 (Goldfarb); Trial Tr., 11/27/07, at pp. 2004-05 (H. Green); Trial Tr.,

12/05/07, at 3199 (Gall).

10. The conclusion that Dr. Goldfarb was the inventor was reached solely on the scientific

Case 2:03-cv-00597-MHM Document 835 Filed 07/29/08 Page 4 of 83
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 5 -

merits of Dr. Goldfarb’s work, and appears not to be based on an “election.” Trial

Tr., 11/07/07, at pp. 418-19 (Goldfarb); Trial Tr., 11/27/07, at pp. 2004-05 (H.

Green); Trial Tr., 12/05/07, at p. 3200 (Gall). 

11. Mr. Sutton summarized the outcome of this meeting in a September 10, 1974

memorandum that stated that it was “unanimously determined that Impra’s patent

application should be filed in the name of Dr. Goldfarb.” PX2. 

12. Dr. Volder signed Mr. Sutton’s memorandum affirming that it “accurately

summariz[ed] the substance of [the] September 9, 1974 discussions.” PX2. There is

no evidence to suggest that Dr. Volder has ever repudiated this signed

acknowledgment. 

B. GORE’S ACTIVITIES IN RELATION TO ePTFE

13. In 1972, research began into the use of expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (“ePTFE”)

as a vascular graft, when Gore and several surgeons experimented to determine the

suitability of ePTFE as a vascular graft. Cooper v. Goldfarb, 154 F.3d 1321, 1324

(Fed. Cir. 1998).

14. During 1972-73, Gore manufactured and sent these ePTFE vascular grafts to

numerous surgeons to evaluate the material’s suitability for use as a vascular

prosthesis. Cooper, 154 F.3d at p. 1324; Trial Tr., 11/8/07, at p. 633 (Goldfarb). 

15. One of the surgeons to receive ePTFE vascular grafts from Gore was Dr. Volder, then

at the University of Utah. Trial Tr., 11/8/07, at p. 633 (Goldfarb). Dr. Volder

co-authored one article concerning his results with this material: Volder, et al., “A-V

Shunts Created in New Ways,” Trans. Amer. Society for Artificial Organs, Vol. XIX,

pp. 38-42 (published by Aug. 6, 1973) (“the Volder A-V Shunts Article”). PX115JJ

at p. PX115.2667-71; DX3247.

16. Dr. Goldfarb also received ePTFE tubing from Gore. H. Green Dep., 7/12/88, at p.

265 (PX116.8867).

17. In 1973 Gore hired Mr. Detton as a “communicator” between the doctors to whom

Case 2:03-cv-00597-MHM Document 835 Filed 07/29/08 Page 5 of 83
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 6 -

Gore was sending ePTFE tubing for testing and the engineers at Gore. Detton Dep.,

6/19/75, at pp. 5-6 (PX115.874-75); Trial Tr., 11/27/07, at p. 1844 (Detton). Mr.

Detton reported directly to Peter Cooper, the plant manager at Gore. Trial Tr.,

11/27/07, at pp. 1844-45 (Detton). In April 1974 Mr. Detton was fired by Gore and,

for a short time thereafter, had limited involvement with the formation of Impra until

he went to Alaska in June 1974 and had no involvement. Detton Dep., 6/19/75, at p.

102 (PX115.971); Trial Tr., 11/27/07, at pp. 1890-93 (Detton).

C. GORE SUES IMPRA

18. Shortly after its formation, Impra and certain individuals associated with Impra, were

sued by Gore for allegedly misappropriating Gore’s trade secrets. Gore v. Impra, No.

74-778 PXH WEC (D. Ariz. 1974) (PX115.341-61). During the course of this

litigation, Mr. Detton and Mr. Harold Green were both deposed in 1975. Detton Dep.,

6/19/75 (PX115.870-1005); H. Green Dep., 7/17 18/75 (PX115.1006-1227).

19. Mr. Sutton met with Mr. Detton for about an hour before his deposition. Trial Tr.,

12/12/07, at p. 4314 (Detton). Mr. Sutton “did not ask [Mr. Detton] to lie or anything

like that.” Id. at pp. 4314, 4317.

20. In his 1975 deposition, Mr. Detton testified that he received a specific request from

Dr. Goldfarb in mid-June 1973 for an ePTFE graft with certain specifications. Detton

Dep., 6/19/75, at p. 32 (PX115.901). Mr. Detton further testified that he and Mr.

Harold Green (then the Gore employee responsible for fabricating ePTFE tubing)

immediately started working on adjusting Gore’s production control variables in order

to make the grafts specified by Dr. Goldfarb, and that grafts satisfying Dr. Goldfarb’s

specifications were delivered to him in mid-July 1973. Detton Dep., 6/19/75, at pp.

21-32 (PX115.890-901). 

21. Mr. Detton also testified that in February 1974, he completed and presented internally

at Gore a memorandum that was a compilation of the research performed by the

various medical researchers, including Drs. Goldfarb and Volder, who were receiving

Case 2:03-cv-00597-MHM Document 835 Filed 07/29/08 Page 6 of 83
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 7 -

ePTFE tubing from Gore (the “1974 Detton Memorandum”). Detton Dep., 6/19/75,

at pp. 42-47 (PX115.911-16). 

22. Mr. Harold Green was deposed after Mr. Detton on July 17-18, 1975. H. Green Dep.,

7/17-18/75 (PX115.1006-1227). Mr. Green stated that in either June or July 1973 Mr.

Detton informed him of what came to be known at Gore as the “Goldfarb Structure.”

H. Green Dep., 7/17-18/75, at pp. 54-58 (PX115.1061-68). He identified the

“Goldfarb Structure” as that described in the claims of Dr. Goldfarb’s patent

application. Id. Mr. Green independently confirmed the physical specifications

received from Mr. Detton by calling Dr. Goldfarb directly because the requested

grafts were so different then any of the ePTFE tubing that Gore had previously

manufactured. PX115O at p. PX115.280. This telephone conversation was

corroborated by Dr. Goldfarb. Trial Tr., 11/07/07, at p. 399 (Goldfarb). Mr. Green

then used Dr. Goldfarb’s specifications to prepare grafts for Dr. Goldfarb in the

summer of 1973. H. Green Dep., 7/17-18/75, at p. 60 (PX115.1067); Trial Tr.,

11/07/07, at pp. 399-400 (Goldfarb). 

D. PTO PATENT APPLICATION

23. On October 24, 1974, Mr. Sutton filed a patent application with the PTO in the name

of Dr. Goldfarb entitled “Prosthetic Vascular Graft” (the “Goldfarb Application”).

PX115A. Around the time the Goldfarb Application was filed, Dr. Goldfarb agreed

to assign all of his rights in the Goldfarb Application to Impra, which agreement

subsequently was memorialized in writing on January 9, 1976. PX1; PX3; PX115M;

PX1356; Trial Tr., 11/07/07, at pp. 420-23, 421, 435-37 (Goldfarb). Mr. Sutton was

the attorney-of-record for the application. PX115M at p. 115.1.

24. All original claims 1-10 of the ‘135 patent application were directed to ePTFE

vascular grafts, and each required a wall thickness within a particular range. PX115A

at p. 115.44-48.

25. On November 26, 1975, the Patent Office mailed its first Office Action in the

Case 2:03-cv-00597-MHM Document 835 Filed 07/29/08 Page 7 of 83
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 8 -

Goldfarb Application to Mr. Sutton. PX115B at p. PX115.190-92. The Office Action

was signed by Examiner R.L. Frinks - the same examiner assigned to the Cooper

Application. (See I.K. Cooper Patent Application infra.) (who, in fact, mailed an

Office Action in the Cooper Application that same day based on three of the same

references (PX117.119-23)). Examiner Frinks rejected the Goldfarb Application as

being unpatentable as obvious in view of four articles: (i) Soyer, et al., “A New

Venous Prosthesis,” Surgery, Vol. 72, page 864 (Dec. 1972) (“the Soyer Article”); (ii)

Matsumoto, et al., “A New Vascular Prosthesis for Small Caliber Artery,” Surgery,

Vol. 74, page 519 (Oct. 1973) (“the Matsumoto III Article”); (iii) the Volder A-V

Shunts Article; and (iv) Poth, et al., “The Use of Plastic Fabrics as Arterial

Prostheses,” Annals of Surgery, Vol. 142, No. 4, pp. 524-632, (Oct. 1955). DX3334,

DX3247, DX3009. 

26. Mr. Sutton had previously identified the Soyer and Matsumoto III Articles as prior art

both in the specification of the Goldfarb Application (PX115A at p. PX115.31.), and

in a “Pre-Examination Amendment and Citation of Prior Art,” received by the PTO

on April 21, 1975. PX115RR at p. PX115.57. 

27. In response to the PTO examiner’s rejection of the Goldfarb Application, Mr. Sutton

submitted five affidavits to the PTO in 1976 – one by Mr. Harold Green, one by Dr.

Baker, two by Mr. Detton, and one by Dr. Volder. PX115C and PX115Q.

28. Mr. Sutton, who drafted the Green, Baker, and Volder affidavits and submitted them

to the Patent Office, testified that those affidavits formed a material portion of the

Patent Office files relating to the ‘135 patent application, and if those affidavits were

incorrect, that would be material to the prosecution of the Goldfarb patent application.

Trial Tr., 12/7/07, 3854-3855, 3884 (Sutton). Dr. Goldfarb was familiar with these

affidavits, he disagreed with at least some of their content, but they were still filed on

his behalf in 1976. Trial Tr., 11/7/07, at pp. 537, 540 and 545-46 (Goldfarb).

Case 2:03-cv-00597-MHM Document 835 Filed 07/29/08 Page 8 of 83
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 9 -

E. THE 1976 AFFIDAVITS

1. DR. VOLDER’S 1976 AFFIDAVIT

29. Dr. Volder’s 1976 Affidavit was executed on July 29, 1976. PX115Q at p.

PX115.311. 

30. In his affidavit, Dr. Volder stated that he was the author of the Volder A-V Shunts

Article relied on by the examiner and:

That, as a result of his early work at the Division of Artificial Organ in

the Department of Surgery of the University of Utah, reported in the

1973 ASAIO [Volder A-V Shunts Article], he was able to speculate .

. . that “It is believed that by increasing the average pore size of the

material, at the moment 5, it will be possible to accelerate the process

of tissue infiltration and development of capillaries.”

PX115Q at p. PX115.308.

31. The 1976 Volder Affidavit further describes how, after the preparation of the Volder

A V Shunts Article, Dr. Volder requested that Mr. Detton prepare “thick wall” tubing

“including a large number of randomly spaced perforations produced by repeatedly

running the tubular structure through a sewing machine ...” and that “his research

efforts were, and continue to be, in the direction of vascular grafts having open

superstructure, characterized by interstitial distances substantially greater than one

hundred microns.” Id. at p. PX115.308-09. Dr. Volder also stated that he had

reviewed the claims of the Goldfarb Application prior to its filing in an effort, inter

alia, to “ascertain whether any technical overlap or conflict existed between the

subject matter claimed ... [and] the work described in the 1973 ASAIO article

[Volder A-V Shunts Article]” and that following such review:

[H]e [was] of the unqualified opinion that the prosthetic vascular

structure conceived and developed by the applicant, while seemingly

apparent when viewed with the aid of hindsight, was by no means

obvious to those actively conducting research on expanded PTFE

vascular structures during 1972 and 1973.

Id. at p. PX115.310. Dr. Volder never withdrew this affidavit after he signed it.

Case 2:03-cv-00597-MHM Document 835 Filed 07/29/08 Page 9 of 83
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 10 -

32. Dr. Volder was a founding director of Impra. DX3380 at pp. I00376-77; Trial Tr.,

12/5/07, at pp. 3207-08 (Gall); PX116III at pp. 116:12853-54, 116:12933. Dr. Volder

also owned stock in Impra and was on its Medical Advisory Board. DX3379,

DX3380 at p. 00381; Trial Tr., 12/5/07, at pp. 3200-01 (Gall); PX116III at pp.

12854-55, 116.12965-66.

33. Although Dr. Volder was a shareholder of Impra at the time he signed his affidavit,

the 1976 Volder Affidavit does not discuss this affiliation with Impra. PX115Q. In

contrast, Mr. Sutton disclosed both Mr. Harold Green’s and Mr. Baker’s affiliation

with Impra. Trial Tr., 12/12/07, at pp. 4262-63 (Thesz). 

34. However, there is no evidence that Dr. Volder was an officer of Impra at the time he

signed his affidavit. Trial. Tr., 12/17/2007, at pp. 4135, 4137-38 (Bjorge).

35. Moreover, there is no evidence that Mr. Sutton, who drafted Dr. Volder’s affidavit,

knew of Dr. Volder’s ownership interest in Impra at or before the time the affidavit

was submitted, or at any time before 1996. Trial Tr., 12/12/07 at pp. 4263, 4306

(Thesz). Nor is there any evidence that either Dr. Volder or Dr. Goldfarb were aware

that Dr. Volder’s ownership interest in Impra possibly should have been disclosed in

Dr. Volder’s affidavit. 

2. DR. BAKER’S 1976 AFFIDAVIT

36. Dr. Lenox Baker executed his affidavit in support of the Goldfarb Application on

March 15, 1976. In his affidavit Dr. Baker stated:

Under no conditions presently known to him would he use or

recommend the use of a graft characterized by a wall thickness greater

than approximately .75 mm, since “thick wall” grafts of this type are

surgically unacceptable and accordingly subject the patient to an

unreasonably high risk of clinical failure.

PX115F at p. PX115.285.

37. Mr. Sutton disclosed in Dr. Baker’s affidavit that Dr. Baker was an officer of Impra.

PX115F at p. PX115.283.

Case 2:03-cv-00597-MHM Document 835 Filed 07/29/08 Page 10 of 83
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 11 -

38. On April 22, 1976, Mr. Sutton argued to the Patent Office on behalf of Dr. Goldfarb

that the 0.2 to 0.8 mm wall thickness range of the claims was an “extremely

important” and non-obvious distinction over the prior art. That argument expressly

quoted paragraph 6 of Dr. Baker’s affidavit to establish the criticality of a wall

thickness range of 0.2 to 0.8 mm and asked the Patent Office to withdraw the pending

obviousness rejection. PX115C at pp. 115.219-20; Trial Tr., 12/11/07, at pp. 3949-51

(Bjorge).

39. By February 1978, Dr. Baker believed that his April 1976 affidavit was untrue or

inaccurate, and this was communicated to Dr. Goldfarb and his counsel. DX3055 at

p. G-11106; Trial Tr., 12/7/07, at p. 3874 (Sutton); Trial Tr., 12/11/07, at pp. 3951-52

(Bjorge).

40. By at least July 1978, Mr. Cates, Dr. Goldfarb’s attorney, was aware of the inaccuracy

of Dr. Baker’s April 1976 affidavit. Trial Tr., 12/11/07, at 3958-3959 (Bjorge);

DX3481. 

41. On November 9, 1978, Dr. Baker was deposed for a second time in the Goldfarb v.

Impra litigation. Trial Tr., 11/27/07, at pp. 1978-85 (Baker). During that deposition,

Dr. Baker indicated that he wanted to change all of Paragraph 6 of his 1976 Affidavit

because he “now believed that our thinking at that time was not correct.” Trial Tr.,

11/27/07, at pp. 1978-79 (Baker). Dr. Baker was advised the “most proper way” of

describing the inaccuracy of paragraph 6 of his March 1976 affidavit would be “at this

deposition” because he understood that it “would undoubtedly end up in the U.S.

Patent Office in relation to [the ‘135] patent application.” Trial Tr., 11/27/07, at pp.

1980-81 (Baker). Dr. Goldfarb was present during that testimony and thereafter read

the transcript. PX117 at p. 117.2994, DX3110; Trial Tr., 12/11/07, at p. 4043

(Bjorge).

42. Dr. Baker confirmed, however, that he did not hold these beliefs at the time he signed

the affidavit in 1976 and that he believed the affidavit to be true and correct at the

Case 2:03-cv-00597-MHM Document 835 Filed 07/29/08 Page 11 of 83
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 12 -

time he signed it. Trial Tr., 11/17/07, at p. 1978 (Baker). 

3. THE 1976 DETTON AFFIDAVITS

43. Two affidavits, signed by Mr. Detton on January 23, 1976, also were filed in April

1976 by Mr. Sutton as part of the argument against the November 1975 Patent Office

rejection of Dr. Goldfarb’s application. PX115N; PX115P. These affidavits stated

what Dr. Goldfarb purportedly told Mr. Detton about the desirable properties of grafts

and what Mr. Detton knew about the wall thickness of grafts purportedly

manufactured by Gore before Dr. Goldfarb’s input. PX115P. However, Mr. Detton

testified at trial that both such statements in his affidavit were false. Trial Tr.,

11/27/07, at pp. 1895-97, 1897-98, 1919 (Detton).

44. On January 23, 1976, in the presence of Mr. Sutton, Mr. Harold Green and Mr.

Detton’s then wife Joanie Prestis, Mr. Detton signed the two affidavits that were later

submitted to the Patent Office by Mr. Sutton on behalf on Dr. Goldfarb. These

affidavits were drafted by Mr. Sutton. Trial Tr., 12/7/07, at pp. 3853-54 (Sutton). 

45. At first Mr. Detton refused to sign the affidavits. According to Mr. Detton, Mr.

Harold Green pressured Mr. Detton to sign the affidavits. Trial Tr., 12/12/07, at p.

4311. Mr. Detton testified that on the drive home after signing the affidavits he

decided that they should not be submitted to the Patent Office because they were “so

fallacious.” Trial Tr., 11/27/07, at p. 1898 (Detton); Trial Tr., 12/12/07, at pp. 4311,

4317-18 (Detton).

46. On January 26, 1976, the following Monday, Mr. Detton claims to have contacted Mr.

Sutton by telephone to request that the affidavits be withdrawn. Trial Tr., 11/27/07,

at p. 1898 (Detton). Mr. Detton testified that he told Mr. Sutton that the affidavits had

been signed under duress, that he was sending him a letter to that effect, and that he

highly objected to them being submitted to the Patent Office. Trial Tr., 12/12/07, at

pp. 4311-12 (Detton). 

47. Also on January 26, 1976, Mr. Detton sent a letter to Mr. Sutton requesting the

Case 2:03-cv-00597-MHM Document 835 Filed 07/29/08 Page 12 of 83
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 13 -

withdrawal of the affidavits that he had executed on January 23, 1976 on the basis that

he “signed them under duress and anger” and because “the claims contained within

those affidavits ... are not totally true.” DX3084; Trial Tr., 11/27/07, at pp. 1898-99,

1899 (Detton). The letter was copied to Dr. Goldfarb. DX3084; Trial Tr., 11/27/07,

at p. 1899 (Detton).

48. Mr. Sutton denies having received the letter, DX3084, from Mr. Detton. Trial Tr.,

12/7/07, at p. 3859 (Sutton). 

49. Mr. Sutton submitted the two Detton affidavits to the Patent Office in April 1976 and

relied on them to overcome the 1975 rejection. PX115P.

50. In January or February of 1978 a meeting occurred at the Golden Eagle restaurant

between Messrs. Detton, Sutton and Harold Green. H. Green Dep., 11/9/78,

(PX115.1652-61). At this meeting, Mr. Detton purportedly indicated that he was

“uncomfortable” with his 1976 Affidavits, and asked for the best way to repudiate

them. Id. At this meeting, Mr. Detton did not specifically identify anything in his

affidavits that he believed to be incorrect, false or otherwise improper. Id. Mr. Sutton

told Mr. Detton that he was no longer involved in the prosecution of the Goldfarb

Application and that he should retain a lawyer or submit a paper directly to the PTO

if he wished to recant his affidavits. Trial Tr., 12/07/07, at pp. 3864-65 (Sutton). Mr.

Detton never did so.

51. Impra disclosed this communication to Dr. Goldfarb in an interrogatory response in

the Goldfarb v. Impra litigation, verified by Mr. Harold Green on September 11,

1978, which stated that: “During February of 1978, Mr. Detton clearly and

unequivocally stated to Mr. Green and ... Samuel J. Sutton, that he (Detton) wishes

to repudiate his affidavit and thereby purge the record of any statements that might

be false, misleading or ambiguous.” DX3051. Despite repeated requests from Dr.

Goldfarb’s attorneys, Impra never provided any details regarding what Mr. Detton

believed to be incorrect, false or otherwise improper in his 1976 Affidavits. Trial Tr.,

Case 2:03-cv-00597-MHM Document 835 Filed 07/29/08 Page 13 of 83
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 14 -

11/07/07, at pp. 444, 448 (Goldfarb). 

52. Mr. Sutton recalled that this meeting took place in April, May, or June 1978, after Mr.

Sutton’s February 1978 withdrawal as Dr. Goldfarb’s patent counsel. Trial Tr.,

11/30/07, at p. 2618 (Sutton). 

53. On November 9, 1978, Mr. Harold Green was deposed in Goldfarb v. Impra. Mr.

Green testified that the Golden Eagle meeting occurred in January or February 1978.

PX116 at p. 116.19059. Mr. Harold Green testified that Mr. Detton said with Mr.

Sutton present that he wanted to repudiate his affidavit:

[Detton] no longer felt comfortable with the affidavit that he had signed

related to the [Goldfarb] patent application and was seeking advice on

how best to repudiate that affidavit ....

PX116 at pp. 116.19059-60. Mr. Green stated that if Mr. Detton withdrew his 1976

Affidavits this may cast a “shadow” over those paragraphs in the 1976 Green

Affidavit referring to Mr. Green’s conversations with Mr. Detton. Id. at pp.

PX115.1663-66, 1671,1674.

54. Mr. Sutton’s secretary and business partner, Jane Shrum, confirmed that Mr. Sutton

learned in or about 1978 that Mr. Detton wanted to change parts of his affidavits.

Trial Tr., 12/12/07, at p. 4152 (Shrum).

55. In October of 1978, Dr. Goldfarb and his litigation counsel, Harold Swenson, met

with Mr. Detton at the airport in Prescott. PX1308 at p. 1308.3; Trial Tr., 11/07/07,

at p. 441 (Goldfarb). At this one-and-a-half to two hour meeting Mr. Detton told Mr.

Swenson that he did not want to repudiate either of his 1976 Affidavits, and that he

was upset that Impra had made such a claim. PX1308 at p. PX1308.3-4; Trial Tr.,

11/07/07, at p. 441 (Goldfarb); Trial Tr., 12/12/07, at pp. 4109-12 (Swenson). 

56. Mr. Harold Green testified that if Mr. Detton wished to repudiate his affidavits,

paragraphs 3, 7, and 9 of Mr. Harold Green’s affidavit would no longer be correct

because the information contained therein came from Mr. Detton. PX116 at pp.

Case 2:03-cv-00597-MHM Document 835 Filed 07/29/08 Page 14 of 83
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 15 -

116.19071-83. 

57. In discussions with Dr. Baker and Mr. Harold Green at different times before Mr.

Sutton withdrew as Goldfarb’s patent counsel, Mr. Sutton learned that they were

worried about their affidavits because they had been based on Mr. Detton’s affidavits,

and that if something was wrong with Detton’s affidavits it could have a “domino

effect” on the other affidavits. Trial Tr., 12/7/07, at p. 3874 (Sutton).

58. Dr. Goldfarb was aware of Mr. Detton’s repudiation, because he was present during

Mr. Harold Green’s deposition where it was discussed. PX116 at p. 116.19031; Trial

Tr., 11/7/07, at p. 569 (Goldfarb). Dr. Goldfarb also read the transcript of Mr. Harold

Green’s deposition by at least July 25, 1979. DX3110.

59. On September 11, 1978, Impra filed sworn Interrogatory responses stating that “Mr.

Detton has on numerous occasions prior to February 1978 conveyed to Mr. Harold

Green an uneasiness regarding the accuracy of [Detton’s] affidavit.” DX3051 at

WGS000449. The sworn interrogatory answers further stated that “[d]uring February

1978, Mr. Detton clearly and unequivocally stated to Mr. Green and the corporate

defendant’s patent counsel, Samuel J. Sutton, that [Detton] wished to repudiate his

affidavit and thereby purge the record of any statements which might be construed to

be false, misleading, or ambiguous.” DX3051 at p. WGS000449. The interrogatory

answers were executed by Mr. Harold Green, then president of Impra. Trial Tr.,

11/27/07, at pp. 1991-92 (H. Green).

60. On February 5, 1980, Mr. Detton executed an affidavit stating that “he questioned the

correctness of [the] statements” of his 1976 affidavit and that he “was pressured into

signing the affidavit.” PX115X at p. 115.615. That affidavit also confirms that Mr.

Sutton was informed in January 1976 that the Detton affidavit “was not correct,” was

signed “under duress” and “[Detton] wanted the Patent Office to be informed of this.”

PX115X at p. 115.615; Trial Tr., 12/12/07, at pp. 4317-18 (Detton). Thus, the 1980

Detton Affidavit provides in its entirety as follows:

Case 2:03-cv-00597-MHM Document 835 Filed 07/29/08 Page 15 of 83
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 16 -

The undersigned D. Dan Detton deposes and says:

(1) That he is presently a resident of the State of Colorado residing

at 10 Spruce Drive, Montrose, Colorado.

(2) That he executed an affidavit entitled “Affidavit of D. Dan

Detton Relating to Source and Origin of Material Comprising

Specification of the Cooper Application” (copy attached)

January 23, 1976, which he understands was filed in the patent

application for David Goldfarb, Serial No. 517,415, filed

October 24, 1974.

(3) That before execution, he questioned the correctness of

statements included in said Affidavit, which had been prepared

by representatives of IMPRA, then assignee of the Goldfarb

application, but was pressured into signing the Affidavit.

(4) That he informed Mr. Sutten [sic], counsel for IMPRA, by

telephone communication on January 26, 1976, (copy of text

attached) that he felt that the Affidavit was not correct, that he

had signed it under duress, and that he wanted the patent office

to be informed of this.

(5) That the vascular structures reported in his memorandum

entitled “Gore-Tex® Medical Product Developments: A

Summary of Current Research Findings” (February 1974) as

being successful, and the specifications of those structures

including wall thickness, density, fibril length and the like, were

determined as a result of the investigations reported in the

memorandum, and had not been predicted by any of the medical

investigators prior to institution of the reported work, and

specifically, that neither David Goldfarb nor Peter Cooper

described to him prior to the investigation at Arizona Heart

Institute which commenced during the Summer of 1973 those

specifications such as wall thickness, density and fibril length of

a vascular graft that would be successful.

PX115X at p. PX115.615-16.

61. On September 13, 1985, Mr. Lawrence Green, one of Dr. Goldfarb’s patent attorneys,

met with Mr. Detton. DX3209. After the meeting, Mr. Lawrence Green sent a letter

to Mr. Detton requesting that Mr. Detton sign another affidavit in order to clarify his

position with respect to the 1976 Affidavits. Id. Mr. Detton failed to respond to this

letter.

Case 2:03-cv-00597-MHM Document 835 Filed 07/29/08 Page 16 of 83
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 17 -

4. HAROLD GREEN’S 1976 AFFIDAVIT

62. The 1976 Green Affidavit was executed on March 2, 1976 after Mr. Harold Green had

left Gore’s employ. PX115C at p. PX115.279-282. There is no evidence that once

Mr. Green left Gore, he had access to Gore’s internal documents, including any

production or shipping logs that might have evidenced the work he did while at Gore.

The 1976 Green Affidavit states: “based upon his personal knowledge of prior art

efforts to achieve an operative prosthetic, he believes that all prior research was

directed to and incorporated ‘thick wall’ tubes having wall thicknesses equal to or

greater than approximately one milimeter [sic] (1mm).” PX115C at p. 115.281. 

63. The 1976 Green Affidavit, also mirrored Mr. Harold Green’s 1975 Gore v. Impra

testimony regarding Dr. Goldfarb’s inventorship stating, among other things, that: (i)

Mr. Detton communicated the “Goldfarb Specifications” to him in the spring and

early summary of 1973; (ii) Mr. Green independently verified the specifications by

contacting Dr. Goldfarb directly because such structures “were at substantial variance

with the structures previously used and requested by other cardiovascular

researchers;” and (iii) having confirmed Dr. Goldfarb’s specifications Mr. Green

immediately began making the requested grafts. PX115O at p. 115.280.

64. Mr. Sutton disclosed in Mr. Green’s affidavit that Mr. Green was an officer of Impra,

the assignee of the Goldfarb Application at the time he signed the affidavit. PX115C

at p. PX115.279.

F. PTO’S MISTAKE ABOUT MATSUMOTO WALL THICKNESS

65. The Matsumoto Surgery article shows a graft wall thickness of 0.5 mm. Trial Tr.,

11/8/07, at p. 653 (Goldfarb); Trial Tr., 11/28/07, at pp. 2101-02 (Goldfarb).

However, the Patent Examiner mistakenly believed that the Matsumoto III article

disclosed a graft wall thickness of 1 mm. DX3055 at p. G-11106; Trial Tr., 12/4/07,

at pp. 2893-94 (Bjorge). 

66. In his remarks in the Office Action, Examiner Frinks noted the following: 

Case 2:03-cv-00597-MHM Document 835 Filed 07/29/08 Page 17 of 83
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 18 -

to further make wall thickness 1 mm or less for small diameters such as

taught by [the Matsumoto III Article] would be obvious. Applicant’s

specific wall thickness of 0.2-0.8 mm is not seen to be a patentable

distinction over wall thickness of [the Matsumoto III Article] in the

absence of proven criticality.

PX115SS at p. PX115.191. 

Although Examiner Frinks had the Matsumoto III Article, from which a wall

thickness of 0.5 mm could readily be calculated (Trial Tr., 11/08/08, at pp. 653-54

(Goldfarb); Trial Tr., 11/28/07, at p. 2174 (Wheeler); DX 3009 at p. 519), he

apparently misinterpreted the Matsumoto III Article as disclosing a wall thickness of

1.0 mm. Mr. Sutton testified as to the “substantial confusion” concerning the wall

thickness disclosed in the Matsumoto III Article at the time he filed the Goldfarb

Application. Trial Tr., 11/30/07, at p. 2612 (Sutton).

67. The Patent Office Examiner, in the November 1975 rejection, effectively asked for

a showing that the claims range of 0.2 to 0.8 mm was “critical” compared to the prior

art. Trial Tr., 12/4/07, at pp. 2893-94 (Bjorge). 

68. Mr. Sutton acting for Dr. Goldfarb provided such a showing by relying on the 1976

Baker affidavit and Mr. Harold Green’s 1976 affidavit, asserting that all prior art

vascular grafts “incorporated ‘thick wall’ tubes having wall thicknesses equal to or

greater than approximately one millimeter.” PX115O. Summarizing, Mr. Sutton

stated in his April 1976 response to the Patent Office that: “all prior art efforts

(including those of Dr. Volder) were based upon the use of ‘thick-walled’ commercial

PTFE tubing characterized by wall thicknesses greater than 1 mm.” PX115E at pp.

115.217.

69. After the Patent Office rejected Dr. Goldfarb’s patent application, Mr. Sutton sought

to distinguish the Matsumoto III Article by arguing that:

Applicant finds no teaching as to the importance of uniform

distribution of nodes and no teaching of the important relationship

between wall thickness and internodular distance. 

Case 2:03-cv-00597-MHM Document 835 Filed 07/29/08 Page 18 of 83
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 19 -

Matsumoto [III] refers to “porosity” for a definition of internodular

distance; however, it is possible to have an eighty percent porous

sample of PTFE which has either a few very large nodes or many

small nodes per unit volume.

PX115E at p. PX115.218. 

70. Impra’s February 1978 letter to Dr. Goldfarb’s counsel acknowledged the Patent

Office Examiner had made a mistake as to wall thickness. DX3055 at p. G-11106.

Dr. Goldfarb’s counsel, Mr. Cates, conceded the error as well. PX1236 at p. 1236.3

(acknowledging that Matsumoto has a 0.5 mm wall thickness).

71. Dr. Goldfarb disclosed the correct wall thickness during the interference. PX116W

at p. PX1116.2676. The PTO found wall thickness not to be a critical or material

factor in the invention. See PX116 at p. 116.7300; PX116 at p. 116.4175-77.

G. DR. VOLDER’S INVENTORSHIP CLAIMS AND NOTEBOOK

72. On September 4, 1974, Dr. Volder’s personal attorney, Mr. Drummond, wrote to Mr.

Sutton asserting that, based on Volder’s “fairly accurate and complete records” (the

“Volder Notebook”), Mr. Drummond believed Dr. Volder to be “the sole inventor”

of “developments relating to the artificial blood vessel.” DX3048.

73. At some point, Dr. Volder provided Mr. Sutton with a copy of the Volder Notebook

which he asked Mr. Sutton to retain “in confidence.” Trial Tr.,12/07/07, at p. 3825

(Sutton). Mr. Sutton claims Dr. Volder provided the Notebook to him in

approximately April 1977. Id. 

74. Mr. Sutton – the only person apart from Dr. Volder and his attorney known to have

personally reviewed these notes – described the Volder Notebook as reflecting Dr.

Volder’s early work on ePTFE grafts, documenting “many failures,” and having a

“delightful and close correlation” with the Volder A-V Shunts Article which was a

“publication of [the] same data.” Trial Tr., 11/30/07, at pp. 2595-96 (Sutton); Trial

Tr., 12/07/07, at p. 3739 (Sutton).

Case 2:03-cv-00597-MHM Document 835 Filed 07/29/08 Page 19 of 83
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 20 -

75. Dr. Goldfarb asserted under oath in 1979 that Mr. Sutton had possession of the actual

Volder notebook in September 1974. DX3110. Mr. Sutton denies he had the

notebook before April 1977, when he claims to have received it from Dr. Volder in

confidence for safekeeping. DX3062; Trial Tr., 12/7/07, 3825 (Sutton). Mr. Sutton

did not advise the Patent Office of the existence of the Volder notebook before he

withdrew as Impra’s counsel in February 1978. 

76. On January 18, 1982, Dr. Goldfarb’s attorney Mr. Cates sent a letter to Mr. Harold

Green noting that neither Impra, nor Mr. Sutton, had provided a copy of the Volder

Notebook and again asking for Impra, or Mr. Sutton, to provide the requested

materials. DX3060. On January 22, 1982, Mr. Sutton responded to Mr. Cates’ letter

stating that he had received a copy of the Volder Notebook “under conditions of

confidentiality.” DX 3062. Mr. Sutton also told Mr. Cates that the Volder notebook

contained “detailed, fully witnessed entries which evidenced Dr. Volder’s work on

ePTFE structures dating back to the early 1970’s” and that the contents of the

notebook was one of the factors that “precipitated Impra’s decision to cease further

prosecution of the [Goldfarb] application.” DX3062. Further, Mr. Sutton informed

Mr. Cates that he could not release his copy of the Volder Notebook “without Dr.

Volder’s express consent” but that Mr. Cates was “free to contact Dr. Volder directly

and seek his permission” to obtain the Volder Notebook. Id. Mr. Cates did not tell

the Patent Office about the existence of the Volder notebook.

77. Mr. Sutton retired from the practice of law in the early 1990s. Trial Tr., 12/07/07, at

pp. 3822-23 (Sutton). In the course of winding up his legal practice between 1990

and 1995 Mr. Sutton had hundreds of boxes of files sent to a paper mill for recycling.

Id.; Trial Tr., 11/30/07, at p. 2627 (Sutton). The Volder Notebook in Mr. Sutton’s

possession was likely included among these files. Trial Tr., 11/30/07, at pp. 2594-96

(Sutton); Trial Tr., 12/07/07, at p. 3825 (Sutton). 

78. No one had requested the Volder Notebook from Mr. Sutton in over 15 years, and Dr.

Case 2:03-cv-00597-MHM Document 835 Filed 07/29/08 Page 20 of 83
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 21 -

Volder had not given him permission to release it. Trial Tr., 11/30/07, at pp. 2627-28

(Sutton). Gore’s patent law expert, Mr. Bjorge, testified that as a matter of PTO

practice and procedure, a presumption has emerged that an invention is “abandoned,

suppressed or concealed,” and thus is not prior art, if it is kept secret for “a period of

18 months to two years.” Trial Tr., 12/04/07, at pp. 2954-55 (Bjorge). Mr. Thesz

agreed with Mr. Bjorge that the so-called Volder Notebook would “satisfy the patent

office definition of material that would be considered abandoned, suppressed or

concealed,” and thus would not constitute prior art. Trial Tr., 12/05/07, at pp.

3311-12 (Thesz); Trial Tr., 12/12/07, at pp. 4261-62 (Thesz).

79. On August 26, 1996, immediately prior to Bard’s acquisition of Impra, James Polese,

an attorney for Impra, wrote to Mr. Lawrence Green noting that he had been in touch

with Dr. Volder and asking if Mr. Green would like the Volder Notebook which Dr.

Volder had indicated he was “confident ... would confirm that Dr. Goldfarb is not the

inventor of the Goldfarb invention.” DX 3864. At the time of writing his letter Mr.

Polese had never seen the Volder Notebook and had no knowledge of its contents or

its relevance to the Goldfarb Application. Trial Tr., 11/30/07, at p. 2640 (Polese). 

80. Although Mr. Lawrence Green did not believe that Dr. Volder’s claim of inventorship

was credible, because it was inconsistent with Peter Cooper’s representations that “he

was quite familiar with all of the work of all of these doctors, including Dr. Volder,

and that none of these doctors had done anything inventive and that none of them had

made any contribution to his invention,” he asked to see a copy of the Volder

Notebook. Trial Tr., 12/12/07, at p 4221 (L. Green). Accordingly, in October of

1996, Mr. Polese wrote to Dr. Volder requesting that Dr. Volder send his notebook

directly to Mr. Green, or to have Mr. Sutton or the “current holder” of the Volder

Notebook (or a copy) send a copy. DX3160; Trial Tr., 11/30/07, at pp. 2632-36;

2641-42 (Polese). Dr. Volder did not send the notebook do so and maintained the

confidentiality of the Volder Notebook. Trial Tr., 11/30/07, at pp. 2640-41 (Polese);

Case 2:03-cv-00597-MHM Document 835 Filed 07/29/08 Page 21 of 83
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

 “KO” is an abbreviation for “knock out.”

- 22 -

Trial Tr., 12/12/07, at pp. 4221-22 (L. Green). 

81. Mr. Lawrence Green never told the Patent Office of Dr. Volder’s claim and in 2001,

when the Goldfarb Application was returned to the patent examiner following the

resolution of the interference, Mr. Green testified he had forgotten about letter. Trial

Tr., 12/12/07, at p. 4219 (L. Green).

82. In September 1996, after Dr. Volder received payment from Bard for his shares of

Impra, Dr. Volder contacted Mr. Sutton and sought his aid in using the content of the

notebook he believed to be in Mr. Sutton’s possession to “KO”1

 the Goldfarb patent.

DX3095. Mr. Sutton declined to assist Dr. Volder. DX3096.

83. Mr. Sutton was unable to produce the Volder notebook in this litigation. Mr. Sutton

testified that he destroyed the notebook during his retirement from law practice at or

about the time that C.R. Bard, Inc. (“Bard”) agreed to acquire Impra’s stock. Trial

Tr., 11/30/07, at pp. 2628-29 (Sutton); Trial Tr., 12/7/07, at p. 3823 (Sutton); Trial

Tr., 12/12/07, at pp. 4168-70 (Shrum). 

H. GOLDFARB SUES IMPRA 

84. On September 20, 1977, Dr. Goldfarb sued Impra (then the exclusive licensee of the

Goldfarb Application), and subsequently terminated Impra’s license to the Goldfarb

Application in December 1977. Goldfarb v. Impra, No. C-3568330 (Ariz. Sup. Ct.,

Maricopa 1977) (PX3); Trial Tr., 11/07/07 at pp. 431-37 (Goldfarb). At that point in

time, Dr. Goldfarb’s and Impra’s interests in the Goldfarb Application diverged and

they became adverse to each other. Trial Tr., 12/12/07, at p. 4108 (Swenson). Dr.

Goldfarb confirmed that the relationship between he and Impra deteriorated following

the lawsuit and that “[t]here was no relationship. Basically a very bad one,” between

he and Impra, and that “what IMPRA [was] trying to do is undermine my patent

application with me as the inventor.” Trial Tr., 11/07/07, at pp. 437, 440 (Goldfarb).

Case 2:03-cv-00597-MHM Document 835 Filed 07/29/08 Page 22 of 83
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 23 -

85. Because Mr. Sutton was Impra’s attorney and “appeared to be involved in the efforts

to make things very difficult for me to pursue the patent prosecution,” (Id. at p. 439),

Dr. Goldfarb revoked Mr. Sutton’s power of attorney to prosecute the Goldfarb

Application on January 6, 1978, and granted power of attorney to Mr. Charles Cates

in his place. PX115T. Mr. Sutton signed his withdrawal as Dr. Goldfarb’s counsel

before the PTO on February 21, 1978. PX115.582. Mr. Sutton’s involvement in the

prosecution of the Goldfarb Application effectively ceased in January when his power

of attorney was revoked by Dr. Goldfarb. Trial Tr., 12/12/07, at pp. 4248-50 (Thesz).

The relationship between Mr. Cates and Mr. Sutton was neither cooperative nor

amicable and they did not collaborate on the prosecution of the Goldfarb Application.

Trial Tr., 12/07/07, at pp. 3877, 3886 (Sutton). 

86. Testimony during depositions in the Goldfarb v. Impra litigation established that, as

of that time, Dr. Volder was still asserting his claim of inventorship. Trial Tr.,

11/27/07, at pp. 1977-78 (Baker). 

87. Interrogatory responses by Impra in that case established Dr. Volder’s claim of

inventorship, the existence of Dr. Volder’s notebook and Impra’s belief in Dr.

Volder’s claim. DX3051. 

88. Dr. Goldfarb and Impra settled their lawsuit in 1979, and in an assignment dated May

21, 1979, Impra assigned to Dr. Goldfarb all rights in the Goldfarb Application.

DX3475. Subsequent to the settlement of the Goldfarb v Impra lawsuit, Mr. Cates

wrote a letter to Dr. Goldfarb’s Australian patent counsel summarizing his

understanding of the various allegations made by Impra in the Baker and Harold

Green deposition testimony and the interrogatory responses provided in that lawsuit.

DX3481. In that letter, Mr. Cates noted:

From these documents, the evasiveness and lack of candor of IMPRA

and the deponents emerges clearly. The witnesses’ motivations should

also be clear: They are heavily interested in IMPRA which is a

company that makes essentially one product, and the assignment of the

Case 2:03-cv-00597-MHM Document 835 Filed 07/29/08 Page 23 of 83
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 24 -

patents and patent applications covering that product was cancelled.

They are highly motivated to detract as much as they can from Dr.

Goldfarb’s patent position.

Id. at p. IVG6083138. 

I. VERMEIRE LETTER AND GOLDFARB’S DUTY TO THE PTO 

89. On February 21, 1978, in conjunction with Dr. Goldfarb assuming responsibility for

prosecution of the Goldfarb Application, Mr. Albert A. Vermiere, Impra’s litigation

counsel in the Goldfarb v. Impra suit, sent all prosecution files to Mr. Swenson, Dr.

Goldfarb’s litigation counsel. DX3055. 

90. The Vermiere letter referred to Mr. Detton’s repudiation of both of his affidavits. The

letter stated, “Mr. Detton has indicated to various persons, including Dr. Goldfarb,

that he wishes to repudiate portions of his affidavits.” DX3055 at p. G-11106.

91. The Vermeire letter also stated that Impra had decided to file “expanded or correct

affidavits from Messrs. Baker, Detton, Goldfarb, Green and Volder.” As to Dr.

Baker, Impra’s attorney wrote: “Dr. Baker has indicated that certain statements in his

affidavit relating to the criticality of wall thickness, although correct when made, are

misleading if not totally incorrect in view of later information which has been

developed on wall thickness.” DX3055 at p. G-11106.

92. In addition, the Vermeire letter stated that “the Matsumoto article as finally published

includes reference to wall thicknesses of 0.5 mm, which is within the range of wall

thicknesses claimed by IMPRA.” DX3055 at p. G-11106. Mr. Vermeire stated that:

“it seems appropriate to at least clear the record on this point by advising the examiner

regarding the wall thickness reference in the later published Matsumoto reference.”

DX3055 at p. G-11106.

93. The Vermeire letter further stated that “[t]here appears to be a substantial claim to

prior or concurrent inventorship by Dr. Volder. This is evidenced by certain entries

in his log-book which purport to have been dated and witnessed in 1971.” DX3055

Case 2:03-cv-00597-MHM Document 835 Filed 07/29/08 Page 24 of 83
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 25 -

at p. G-11105.

94. The Vermeire letter concluded with a statement of the duty of disclosure to the Patent

Office: “it is our strongest recommendation that the various Patent Offices be fully

informed regarding the matters set forth above since failure to do so may irreversibly

affect the validity or enforceability of any patent rights which IMPRA may ultimately

obtain.” DX3055 at p. G-11107.

95. Dr. Goldfarb acknowledges that he was aware of the Vermeire letter and its

allegations, as was his attorney, Mr. Cates, and as was Mr. Sutton. Trial Tr., 11/7/07,

438-439, 561-562 (Goldfarb); Trial Tr., 11/30/07, 2619-2620 (Sutton); Trial Tr.,

12/7/07, 3885 (Sutton); Trial Tr., 12/12/07, 4109 (Swenson); PX1236.

96. Mr. Vermiere’s letter did not provide any details or evidence to support these

allegations. Mr. Harold Green testified that this letter, and other disclosures provided

by Impra in connection with the Goldfarb v. Impra litigation, were part of an effort

by Impra to “torpedo” the Goldfarb Application in order to avoid potential litigation

in the future. Trial Tr., 11/27/07, 2001 (H. Green); Trial Tr., 11/07/07, at p. 440

(Goldfarb). 

97. Dr. Baker, the largest shareholder of Impra, with approximately 25 percent of the

shares, as well as an officer of Impra and chairman of its board, was deposed the day

after the date on the Vermiere letter (i.e., February 22, 1978) in the Goldfarb v. Impra

litigation. Trial Tr., 11/27/07, at pp. 1975-76 (Baker). During his deposition Dr.

Baker stated that there were several claims to inventorship of the Goldfarb

Application, including those of Dr. Volder, Dr. Campbell, Mr. Harold Green and Mr.

Detton, but that Dr. Goldfarb had been “elected” inventor at the September 9, 1974

meeting. Id. at p. 1977. Dr. Baker, however, admitted that he had no personal

knowledge of anyone with a claim of inventorship to the Goldfarb Application other

than Dr. Goldfarb, and that he was not present at the September 9, 1974 meeting when

the so-called “election” occurred. Id. Dr. Baker also never testified that he believed

Case 2:03-cv-00597-MHM Document 835 Filed 07/29/08 Page 25 of 83
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 26 -

that the determination of inventorship was false, or that there was a purposeful

misstatement of inventorship. Id. at pp. 1977, 1982-83.

98. Following receipt of Mr. Vermiere’s February 21, 1978 letter, Mr. Swenson wrote to

Mr. Vermiere on March 10, 1978, noting that “[t]he opinions now expressed by your

principals in this obtuse fashion are highly suspect, coming as they do from biased

parties to a lawsuit.” PX1233; Trial Tr., 11/07/07, at pp. 442-45 (Goldfarb). In his

letter, Mr. Swenson asked Impra: “[I]f you have facts to support your self-serving

opinions and innuendos, please make them known to us.” PX1233 at p. PX1233.2

(emphasis original). In particular, Mr. Swenson asked for Impra to “send a copy of

the Volder notes” so that they could “draw our own conclusions.” Id. at p. PX1233.1.

As Dr. Goldfarb explained, this letter was the start of a series of attempts “to get from

IMPRA or Dr. Volder or both the objective evidence from them to support their

allegations.” Trial Tr., 11/07/07, at pp. 447-49 (Goldfarb). However, Dr. Goldfarb

and his attorneys were never able to get a clear understanding of Impra’s allegations.

Id. at p. 449.

99. On July 19, 1978, having received no response from Mr. Vermeire, Mr. Cates sent a

letter to Mr. Sutton requesting copies of the Volder Notebook. PX1236; Trial Tr.,

11/07/07, at pp. 446-48 (Goldfarb). In his letter, Mr. Cates stated that if the Volder

Notebook was indeed “confidential” and undisclosed, then it would not qualify as

invalidating prior art. PX1236. Mr. Cates’ letter also requested that Mr. Sutton

provide “candid and unequivocal answers” to the questions relating to the Baker,

Green, Detton and Volder affidavits, and Dr. Volder’s claim to prior or concurrent

inventorship, raised in Mr. Vermiere’s letter. Id. Mr. Cates never received any

substantive response to this letter. Trial Tr., 11/07/07, at p. 452 (Goldfarb). Mr.

Sutton responded by saying that he could not provide any answers because he had not

received the earlier letters between Mr. Vermeire and Mr. Swenson. Id.; PX1237.

100. On April 9, 1979, Mr. Cates sent a letter directly to Dr. Volder in the Netherlands

Case 2:03-cv-00597-MHM Document 835 Filed 07/29/08 Page 26 of 83
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 27 -

requesting that Dr. Volder “waive confidentiality of [the Volder Notebook] and

permit Mr. Sutton to let us make copies and inspect the original.” DX3058; Trial Tr.,

11/07/07, at pp. 455-57 (Goldfarb). Neither Dr. Goldfarb nor his attorneys received

a reply to this letter from Dr. Volder. Trial Tr., 11/07/07, at p. 456 (Goldfarb). On

June 27, 1979, Mr. Sutton wrote to Mr. Cates directing him to “terminate all further

direct communications with Dr. Volder,” and to contact Mr. Sutton if he wished to

pursue further the matter of the Volder Notebook. PX1307; Trial Tr., 11/07/07, at pp.

456-58 (Goldfarb). Mr. Sutton re-emphasized that he had “received Dr. Volder’s

logbook in confidence.” PX1307.

J. CONTINUED EXAMINATION BY THE PTO

101. On September 23, 1980, Dr. Goldfarb licensed his rights in the Goldfarb Application

to Bard (i.e. C.R. Bard). Trial Tr., 11/7/07, 461-462 (Goldfarb); PX4. On June 24,

1981, Mr. Arthur Bookstein, a patent attorney representing Bard, was appointed as an

additional attorney in the Goldfarb patent application. PX.115.606. Mr. Bookstein

assumed the lead responsibility for the prosecution of the Goldfarb Application and

Mr. Cates’ involvement in the prosecution of the Goldfarb Application thereafter was

“zero.” Trial Tr., 12/12/07, at p. 4252 (L. Green); Trial Tr., 12/12/07, at pp. 4251-52

(Thesz). As with Mr. Cates, Mr. Bookstein, never met with Impra’s lawyer, Mr.

Sutton, while Impra was adverse to Dr. Goldfarb. Trial Tr., 12/07/07, at p. 3794

(Bookstein). 

102. On July 16, 1979, Mr. Cates, acting as Dr. Goldfarb’s attorney, filed in the Patent

Office a “Motion to Return File to Examiner for Determination of Patentability

Issues,” disclosing the existence of the Goldfarb v. Impra litigation and requesting

that the Goldfarb Application be returned to the Examiner for continued prosecution.

PX115U at p. 115.585. In disclosing the existence of the Goldfarb v. Impra litigation,

Mr. Cates specifically noted that “the record of [the lawsuit] is available to the Patent

and Trademark Office” and that the “[a]pplicant desires that the record of those

Case 2:03-cv-00597-MHM Document 835 Filed 07/29/08 Page 27 of 83
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 28 -

proceedings along with the records of the Gore case (in Federal District Court) and

Cooper case (in Arizona State Court), both previously referred to in this application

file, be made available to the Commission for consideration.” Id.

103. On December 11, 1979, the Assistant Commissioner for Patents granted Dr.

Goldfarb’s motion to return the file to the Patent Office Examiner, PX115V, and

stated that “[Goldfarb] and his attorney [were] required to submit portions of the

record, including depositions, pleadings, etc. in connection with the [Goldfarb v.

Impra] litigation, and any other information that they were aware of which was

material to the examination of the application.” PX115 at p. 115.593.

104. In the time between the December 11, 1979 Order of the Assistant Commissioner

(PX115V), which required production of material from the Goldfarb v. Impra case,

and the July 8, 1981 decision (PX115W), neither Dr. Goldfarb nor his attorney

submitted the requested documentation from the Goldfarb v. Impra case. Trial Tr.,

12/11/07, 3954, 4058-4060, 4061 (Bjorge). 

105. PTO Examiner William Pieprz mailed the second Office Action twice: once on April

29, 1981 and again on July 8, 1981. PX115W. Examiner Pieprz – who also assumed

responsibility for the Cooper Application (PX117.3699-714) – determined that “the

record developed in this application, taken as a whole totally and fully supports the

conclusion that Dr. Goldfarb is properly named as the inventor of this application,”

thus withdrawing the November 1975 rejection of Goldfarb’s claims 1 to 10.

PX115W at p. 115.603.

106. In that second Office Action relating to the Goldfarb Application, Examiner Pieprz

withdrew his prior rejection of the claims over the Soyer, Volder A-V Shunts and

Matsumoto III articles without explanation and instead rejected claims 1-6 as obvious

over an article by Dr. Campbell, “Expanded Polytetrafluoro-Ethylene as a Small

Artery Substitute,” dated 1974 (the “Campbell Article”). PX115.2589-93. Consistent

with PTO practice and procedure, the examiner treated the Campbell article as prior

Case 2:03-cv-00597-MHM Document 835 Filed 07/29/08 Page 28 of 83
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 29 -

art to the Goldfarb Application, even though it was dated 1974, and the burden was

placed on Dr. Goldfarb to “go find the information and argue about whether it was a

proper – proper prior art reference or not.” Trial Tr., 12/12/07, at p. 3286 (Thesz).

107. Mr. Bookstein responded to Examiner Pieprz’s Office Action on December 10, 1981,

arguing that the Campbell Article was not prior art because it was not published until

January 1975. PX115X at pp. 115.609-14. In addition, although noting that he had

“some reasons to believe that the examiner already may be aware of this document

because it may have been filed in connection with the ‘Cooper Application’,” Mr.

Bookstein submitted a copy a the February 5, 1980 Detton Affidavit that he had

obtained from the Australian Patent Office. PX115X; PX116GGG at p. PX116.3718.

In submitting the 1980 Detton Affidavit, Mr. Bookstein noted that “applicant submits

it without vouching in any way for the authenticity of the document or for anything

else concerning the document or any subject matter stated or suggested therein,” and

further noted that the 1980 Detton Affidavit “does not appear to seek to contradict or

vary the Second Detton affidavit or the Green affidavit . . . .” PX115X at p.

PX115.611. 

108. Mr. Bookstein further disclosed to the PTO that there were deposition transcripts from

the Gore v. Impra, Goldfarb v. Impra, and Goldfarb v. Gore litigations that were

“potentially relevant” to the Goldfarb Application. PX115X at pp. 115.611-13.

Noting that it was “applicant’s understanding that the examiner may have obtained

and reviewed numerous volumes of deposition transcripts” already, Mr. Bookstein

identified three lists of deposition transcripts in order “to confirm that the examiner

has had an opportunity to review all potentially relevant deposition transcripts.” Id.

at p. 115.611. 

109. One list identified those transcripts from the Gore v. Impra litigation that were filed

under seal which “it is believed that the examiner already may have reviewed ... and,

therefore, it is unnecessary for applicant to make further efforts to duplicate them for

Case 2:03-cv-00597-MHM Document 835 Filed 07/29/08 Page 29 of 83
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 30 -

the examiner.” PX115X at p. 115.612. A second list identified those transcripts

which were not under seal and which were available to the examiner “although

applicant’s undersigned counsel does not consider them to be particularly relevant or

a variance with any conclusion which the examiner has come to.” PX115X at p.

115.613. This second list included the November 1978 Dr. Baker deposition and the

November 1978 Harold Green deposition, which had already been provided to

Examiner Pieprz in the Cooper Application. PX117.2992-3054; PX117.3544-630.

110. On May 18, 1982, Examiner Pieprz issued his third Office Action pertaining to the

Goldfarb Application, in which he maintained his prior rejection over the Campbell

Article based on his understanding that the substance of the article was presented

orally in April 1974. PX115Y. Examiner Pieprz also stated his reliance on Mr.

Bookstein’s representations concerning the depositions in the Goldfarb v. Impra

litigation. He stated as follows:

- Even though Mr. Bookstein had just provided the 1980 Detton Affidavit, it had

“been considered in formulation of the prior Office Action” and that it “is not

considered to have any effect on the status of [the Goldfarb Application]”;

- He had reviewed all but two of the Gore v. Impra deposition transcripts, but

did not need copies of these documents because they would not “yield any

significant new, information relevant to the [Goldfarb Application]”; and, 

- He had not reviewed “most” of the Goldfarb v. Impra and Goldfarb v. Gore

deposition transcripts and would accept Mr. Bookstein’s representation

regarding their relevance “at face value.” 

- Mr. Bookstein, as counsel for the applicant, is the “final arbiter” of what

documents from the Goldfarb v. Impra litigation must be submitted to the

Patent and Trademark Office “in satisfaction of his ‘duty to disclose.’” 

PX115Y at pp. PX115.640-41. 

111. Examiner Pieprz had, however, reviewed the 1978 deposition transcripts of Mr.

Case 2:03-cv-00597-MHM Document 835 Filed 07/29/08 Page 30 of 83
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 31 -

Harold Green and Dr. Baker from the Goldfarb v. Impra litigation in connection with

the Cooper Application. PX117.2992-3052; PX117.3055-283.

112. A telephonic interview was held on May 27, 1982, during which Mr. Bookstein

argued that the Campbell Article was not prior art because Dr. Goldfarb invented the

subject matter of the Goldfarb Application prior to the April 1974 disclosure.

PX115.642. As support, Mr. Bookstein relied on the Second Detton Affidavit and the

1976 Green Affidavit. PX115O. 

113. On August 27, 1982, Examiner Pieprz withdrew his previous rejections and accepted

Mr. Bookstein’s argument. The prior rejection over the Campbell article was

withdrawn due to the Detton Affidavits and the 1976 Green Affidavit, which “makes

clear that applicant had already invented the claimed subject matter prior to the date

of the above noted oral presentation.” PX115DD at p. 115.692.

K. COOPER PATENT APPLICATION

114. On April 2, 1974, Gore filed a patent application entitled “Artificial Vascular

Prostheses” naming Peter Cooper as the sole inventor (“the Cooper Application”).

PX117.5-18. Just before such filing, on March 27, 1974, Mr. Cooper assigned all

interest in the Cooper Application to Gore. PX117.20-21. 

115. The Cooper Application was initially assigned to Examiner Frinks - the same

examiner originally assigned to the Goldfarb Application. 

116. In July 1975, Gore filed a Petition to Withdraw From Issuance under the provisions

of 35 C.F.R. § 1.313. PX117.110-16. The basis for the motion was that allegations

in the Gore v. Impra litigation raised questions as to whether Mr. Cooper and Gore

had committed fraud in filing the Cooper Application and, in particular, whether the

Cooper Application “plagiarized its working examples from a memorandum which

described the work of Dr. David Goldfarb and that all of the working examples in the

application were, in fact, based on the work of Dr. David Goldfarb and not the work

of [Mr. Cooper].” Id. at p. PX117.114. 

Case 2:03-cv-00597-MHM Document 835 Filed 07/29/08 Page 31 of 83
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 32 -

117. The PTO granted the petition to withdraw the Cooper Application on July 29, 1975,

before Examiner Frinks had issued any Office Action in the Goldfarb Application.

Id. at p. PX117.118. On November 26, 1975 – the same day the first Office Action

in the Goldfarb Application was mailed – Examiner Frinks issued an Office Action

in the Cooper Application rejecting all pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(f) on

the grounds that Mr. Cooper was “not in fact the proper inventor,” and further in view

of the Matsumoto III Article or, in the alternative, the Volder A-V Shunts Article. Id.

at pp. PX117.119-23. With respect to the Volder A-V Shunts Article, Examiner

Frinks specifically noted that it disclosed “increasing pore size (which is directly

related to fibril length) beyond 5 microns.” PX117.121. 

118. On March 4, 1977, the Office of Assistant Commissioner mailed a “Requirement for

Information” to Mr. Finnegan acknowledging that there “were substantial questions

... regarding the present [Cooper] application and its inventorship,” and that Gore had

failed to fully set forth the details regarding the charges of fraud on the Patent Office

raised in the Gore v. Impra litigation. Id. at pp. PX117.187-12. Mr. Finnegan

responded to the Requirement for Information on October 4, 1977, by submitting an

affidavit and declaration of inventorship from Mr. Cooper, responses to questions

from Mr. Uebler, and various papers from the Gore v. Impra litigation including the

deposition transcripts of Mr. Harold Green and Dr. Lenox Baker. Id. at pp.

PX117.226-34. Through these papers Mr. Finnegan asserted the following:

 - Mr. Cooper still considered himself to be “the original, first, and sole inventor

of the subject matter claimed in this application.” Id. at p. PX117.2068.

- The 1974 Detton Memorandum was used in the preparation of the Cooper

Application and the original claims, but that such use was proper because Mr.

Cooper’s invention allegedly pre-dated any disclosure by Dr. Goldfarb to

Gore. PX117F at pp. PX117.2069-76.

- “With respect to the surgeons [Mr. Cooper], as Plant Manager of the Gore

Case 2:03-cv-00597-MHM Document 835 Filed 07/29/08 Page 32 of 83
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

 In response to the November 26, 1975 Office Action, Gore employee Ernest A.

Uebler had disclosed two articles by Matsumoto - Matsumoto, et al., “Application of Porous

Polytetraflouroethylene to Artificial Blood Vessel, First Report: Application to the

Peripheral Artery,” Artificial Organs, 1972 (“the Matsumoto I Article”) and Matsumoto, et

- 33 -

Flagstaff facility, was generally responsible for manufacturing and supplying

the surgeons with expanded PTFE vascular grafts for evaluation purposes. ...

[Mr. Cooper] worked closely with the surgeons, supplied them with Gore

vascular grafts having different structures for implantation and eventual

harvesting, and reviewed the experimental results. [Mr. Cooper] participated

in many personal and telephone conferences with these surgeons, either

directly or through liaison personnel at Gore.” Id. at p. PX117.2079.

- Dr. Volder had “questioned whether Peter B. Cooper was the inventor. [Mr.

Uebler] thereupon conducted an additional search to develop any further

documents that might be relevant to the question of inventorship and discussed

this matter with W.L. Gore. It was again concluded that Peter B. Cooper was

the inventor.” Id. at p. PX117.2111.

- That the Soyer and Volder A-V Shunts Articles were “irrelevant” to the

Cooper Application (id. at p. PX117.2114) because “pore size” as used in

those articles “bears no relationship to fibril length” (id.) as demonstrated by

the Affidavit of Wilbert L. Gore, which established that: “[t]he measurement

‘pore size,’ as used in the Soyer, et al., article, is not the same as fibril length,

as used in the Cooper Application, which is defined as the spacing or distance

between the nodes or the internodular distance.” PX117.2127-37 at p.

117.2133.

119. The Assistant Commissioner issued a second Request for Information on March 10,

1978 seeking information as to why Dr. Kelly was not a named inventor and as to

whether the Cooper Application was unpatentable over certain Matsumoto articles.2

Case 2:03-cv-00597-MHM Document 835 Filed 07/29/08 Page 33 of 83
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

al., “Experimental Studies on Expanded Polytetrafluoroethylene As Vascular Prosthesis -

The Second Report: Its Applicability To Veins,” Artificial Organs, 1973 (“the Matsumoto

II Article”) - and asserted that the Cooper Application was unpatentable in view of their

disclosures. PX117.127-33. 

- 34 -

PX117.2819-27. Albert J. Santorelli, who had assumed primary responsibility for the

Cooper Application from Mr. Finnegan, responded by arguing that Dr. Kelly was not

an inventor because he had not recognized that fibril length (which was key to tissue

ingrowth) was the key parameter of a successful ePTFE graft, and that the Matsumoto

III Article did not render the Cooper Application unpatentable because it “is not

understood ... as disclosing the criticality of fibril length with respect to tissue

ingrowth.” PX117.2831-.53 at p. PX117.2840.

120. Mr. Santorelli also submitted a number of papers entitled “Applicant’s Position with

Respect to Inventorship and the Rule 131 Affidavit.” In the first paper, Mr. Santorelli

disclosed the existence of the Goldfarb v. Impra lawsuit and quoted from Impra’s

brief opposing Dr. Goldfarb’s request to unseal the deposition transcripts (for

purposes of submitting them to the PTO) in which Impra argued that: “it has recently

been testified to by Mr. [Harold] Green and Dr. Lenox Baker that there now exists

information which may wholly invalidate the patent application and render certain

statements contained in the depositions of Mr. Cooper and Mr. Detton completely

stale and misleading.” PX117 at p. 117.3669. 

121. In a “First Supplement” to this paper Mr. Santorelli submitted copies of Mr. Harold

Green’s and Dr. Baker’s deposition transcripts and exhibits from the Goldfarb v.

Impra litigation and specifically noted that: “[i]t is evident from these depositions that

IMPRA, formerly assignee of the Goldfarb Application and responsible for the

prosecution of that application now (1) repudiates its previous allegation that Dr.

Goldfarb is the inventor of the subject matter of the Cooper application; and (2)

doubts the veracity of affidavits filed by IMPRA in the Goldfarb Application ... .”

Case 2:03-cv-00597-MHM Document 835 Filed 07/29/08 Page 34 of 83
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 35 -

PX117.2990-91.

122. On March 18, 1980, Mr. Santorelli submitted a “Second Supplement” which was

received by Examiner Pieprz – the same patent examiner responsible for the Goldfarb

Application. PX117.3644-51. The Second Supplement attached the 1980 Detton

Affidavit with both of its attachments (PX117.3675-82) and asserted that: “In light

of the recent deposition testimony of Green and Baker and the February 5, 1980

affidavit of Detton, their affidavits submitted in the Goldfarb application and the

deposition testimony of Detton and Green in the [Gore v. Impra] trade secret litigation

cannot possibly be relied on to support a determination that proper inventorship in this

case lies solely or jointly in Goldfarb. On the contrary, the record shows that Cooper

is the inventor.” PX117.3649.

123. On December 11, 1979, the Assistant Commissioner returned both the Goldfarb and

Cooper Applications to the Primary Examiner with directions to determine who the

proper inventor was and whether there were any grounds to reject the pending claims.

PX115V; PX117.3631-43. 

124. In an Office Action dated March 10, 1981, Examiner Pieprz addressed the various

contributions of the persons identified by the Assistant Commissioner and concluded

that Dr. Campbell was “a sole inventor rather than a joint inventor with Peter

Cooper.” PX117E at p. PX117.3712. With respect to Mr. Detton’s contribution,

Examiner Pieprz expressly noted:

Incidentally, a deposition by Detton in the Gore v. IMPRA lawsuit

contained statements to the effect that Dr. D. Goldfarb defined the

successful graft structure. These statements have since been retracted

by Mr. Detton in an affidavit dated February 5, 1980.

PX117E at p. 117.3701. Examiner Pieprz further rejected the pending claims under

35 U.S.C. § 103 based, inter alia, on his conclusion that the Matsumoto III Article

had a “photograph [that] appears to show fibril lengths within this preferred range.”

Case 2:03-cv-00597-MHM Document 835 Filed 07/29/08 Page 35 of 83
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 36 -

PX117E at p. 117.3713.

125. On March 17, 1981, Mr. Santorelli responded to Examiner Pieprz’s Office Action,

objecting to the determination that Dr. Campbell was the sole inventor because Mr.

Cooper purportedly invented the subject matter of the Cooper Application before Dr.

Campbell started working with Gore’s ePTFE grafts. PX117.3719-40. Mr. Santorelli

further argued that the Matsumoto III Article did not render the Cooper Application

obvious because it contains “absolutely no reference to the term fibril length or

distance between nodes. It is unreasonable to hold that a reference that doesn’t even

mention fibril length makes obvious an invention that specifically equates fibril length

to tissue ingrowth and discloses specific ranges for fibril length.” PX117.3739.

126. In an interview held on March 29, 1982, between Examiner Pieprz and Messrs.

Cooper, W.L. Gore, Campbell and Santorelli, Mr. Santorelli again argued that the

Matsumoto III Article “does not even mention fibril length, let alone teach the

criticality of this parameter in connection with the promotion of tissue ingrowth.”

PX117C at p. PX117.3798. Based on these arguments, Examiner Pieprz found the

Cooper Application allowable over the Matsumoto III Article concluding that: “The

references, alone or combined, do not evidence attachment of any criticality to the

fibril length range of the expanded PTFE. Thus not recognizing the relationship

between fibril length and tissue ingrowth, the references cannot render the instant

claims unpatentable.” PX117D at p. 117.3807. Prosecution on the merits was closed

and the Cooper Application was referred to the Assistant Commissioner for further

consideration regarding the question of inequitable conduct by Mr. Cooper. PX117D

at p. 117.3807.

/////

/////

Case 2:03-cv-00597-MHM Document 835 Filed 07/29/08 Page 36 of 83
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

 An “interference” is “a proceeding instituted for the purpose of determining the

question of priority of invention between two or more parties claiming substantially the same

patentable invention. . . .” 37 C.F.R. § 1.201(a) (1984).

- 37 -

II. THE INTER PARTES INTERFERENCE3

127. On May 18, 1983, Examiner Pieprz mailed a communication to Mr. Bookstein

suggesting that the following claim, found allowable, be adopted for the purpose of

interference:

An artificial vascular prosthesis comprising expanded, porous,

polytetraflouroethylene having a microstructure consisting of nodes

interconnected by fibrils which permits tissue ingrowth, wherein said

fibrils are above about 5 microns in length.

PX 115J. Notably, the PTO determined that the invention described in Dr. Goldfarb’s

patent application included allowable claims for an ePTFE vascular prosthesis without

wall thickness or density limitations. Id. Mr. Bookstein amended the Goldfarb

Application on July 1, 1983, to add the claim suggested by Examiner Pieprz.

PX115.695-98.

128. On September 19, 1983, the PTO Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences declared

an interference between the Goldfarb Application and the Cooper Application,

assigning it Interference No. 101,100 (“the Interference”). PX115GG. Dr. Goldfarb,

as the later filing party, was designated the “Junior Party,” with Mr. Cooper

designated the “Senior Party.” The initial count of the Interference was identical to

the claim that Examiner Pieprz had suggested Mr. Bookstein copy into the Goldfarb

Application to initiate the interference. 

A. PARTIES MOVE TO DISPOSE OF THE INTERFERENCE

129. On April 30, 1984, both Mr. Santorelli and Mr. Bookstein filed and served various

preliminary motions pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.231 which sought to dispose of the

Interference.

Case 2:03-cv-00597-MHM Document 835 Filed 07/29/08 Page 37 of 83
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 38 -

1. COOPER’S MOTION TO DISSOLVE

130. Mr. Cooper filed a Motion Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.231 To Dissolve the Interference

based on the allegation that Dr. Goldfarb had committed inequitable conduct by: (i)

filing the Detton Affidavits even through Mr. Sutton allegedly knew they were not

correct; and (ii) withholding from the PTO the 1978 deposition testimony of Mr.

Harold Green and Dr. Baker that raised questions regarding their 1976 affidavits.

PX116.2448-65. Attached to Mr. Cooper’s motion were the previously-submitted

1980 Detton Affidavit and relevant excerpts from Harold Green’s and Dr. Baker’s

1978 deposition testimony. PX116.2552-59; PX116.2561-93; PX116.2595-613.

131. Mr. Bookstein personally prepared the response to Mr. Cooper’s Motion to Dissolve.

Trial Tr., 12/12/07, at p. 4187 (L. Green). In his opposition to Mr. Cooper’s Motion

to Dissolve Mr. Bookstein made four basic arguments refuting Gore’s allegations of

inequitable conduct. The four arguments he made are as follows:

a. Both the 1976 Detton Affidavits were filed in the belief that they were correct;

Mr. Cooper had failed to indicate how either affidavit was materially incorrect;

the affidavits were independently supported by Mr. Detton’s sworn testimony

in the Gore v. Impra litigation (which he did not repudiate) as corroborated by

the testimony of Harold Green and Richard Mendenhall; and Goldfarb had

submitted the 1980 Detton Affidavit which Examiner Pieprz had concluded

“was of no effect on the Goldfarb application.”

b. The deposition testimony of Harold Green and Dr. Baker did not repudiate

their respective affidavits in any material respect, nor did they raise any serious

questions concerning Dr. Goldfarb’s inventorship; Harold Green never

withdrew the 1976 Green Affidavit; any repudiation by Detton was immaterial

as Mr. Green had independently verified Dr. Goldfarb’s specifications; Dr.

Baker never contradicted his 1976 affidavit because he never stated that a wall

thickness of 0.5 mm was critical, merely that it was optimal; and Dr. Baker’s

Case 2:03-cv-00597-MHM Document 835 Filed 07/29/08 Page 38 of 83
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 39 -

other testimony concerning Dr. Goldfarb’s inventive contribution was based

on a lack of personal knowledge and mere speculation.

c. The Examiner had been made aware of, and had read the 1978 deposition

transcripts of Harold Green and Dr. Baker, and the Examiner had still found

Dr. Goldfarb to be the sole inventor after having considered such testimony

thereby indicating that it was not material.

d. Dr. Goldfarb did not withhold affidavit retractions claimed to have occurred

during the Green and Baker depositions, and made no misrepresentations

concerning the scope of the deposition testimony but made good faith efforts,

in consultation with the Examiner and in accordance with the Examiner’s

directions, to avoid duplicate submissions of voluminous deposition transcripts

that the Examiner already had available to him in the Cooper Application. 

PX116GGG.

132. Further, with respect to the 1980 Detton Affidavit, Mr. Bookstein also argued that it

“refers back and relates only to the [Detton-Cooper Source Affidavit]” and that “the

1980 affidavit cannot and should not be considered as being intended to include the

[Second Detton Affidavit].” PX116GGG at p. PX116.3719. Both Mr. Bjorge and

Mr. Thesz agreed that after reading the 1980 Detton Affidavit a reasonable examiner

could conclude that Mr. Detton had misgivings about one of his 1976 affidavits. Trial

Tr., 12/04/07, at p. 2936 (Bjorge); Trial Tr., 12/12/07, at p. 4273 (Thesz). 

2. GOLDFARB’S MOTION TO DISSOLVE, AMEND,

SUBSTITUTE COUNTS, OR STRIKE

133. Mr. Bookstein also filed a preliminary motion to dissolve the Interference (PX116J),

arguing that it was unpatentable in light of, inter alia: (i) the Matsumoto I Article

which he asserted, based on the declaration of Dr. Fredrick Schoen, disclosed a node

and fibril microstructure in Figure 1 exhibiting tissue ingrowth with an internodal

distance in the “order of 50 microns” (PX116J at pp. PX116.3010-15); (ii) a

Case 2:03-cv-00597-MHM Document 835 Filed 07/29/08 Page 39 of 83
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 40 -

photomicrograph in the Matsumoto II Article with a ten micron dimensional scale (Id.

at p. PX116.3025); (iii) the Soyer Article, which Mr. Bookstein argued disclosed a

range of “pore sizes” between .5 and 2.5 microns, and that one of skill in the art

would have understood “pore size” to be synonymous with fibril length (id. at pp.

PX116.3015-24); and (iv) the Volder A-V Shunts Article which Mr. Bookstein argued

disclosed an ePTFE vascular graft with a “pore size” within the claimed range (Id. at

pp. PX116.3026-28.)

134. Mr. Santorelli opposed Goldfarb’s Motion to Dissolve (PX116AAA) arguing that

Matsumoto II was not prior art because it was published in October 1973 (the same

time as the Matsumoto III Article), and that Matsumoto I was not anticipatory because

it “does not even mention fibrils or fibril length and is silent as to any significance of

fibril length, does not in any way teach that tissue ingrowth is functionally related to

fibril length, [and] does not describe the fibrils or the fibril length of the graft sections

depicted ... .” PX116AAA at p. PX116.3819. With respect to the Soyer and Volder

A-V Shunts Articles, Mr. Santorelli argued that the term “pore size” used in those

articles does not have, and would not be understood by one of skill in the art to have,

the same meaning as “fibril length” or “internodular distance” (PX116AAA at pp.

PX116.3831-.3834 and PX116.3838-40) and submitted the declaration of Carleton

Angelo Sperati, M.D., in support. PX116.3885-94.

135. In the alternative to dissolving the Interference, Mr. Bookstein moved to substitute or

add new counts to the Interference, which included an upper limit for fibril length and

ranges for wall thickness and density that Mr. Bookstein argued was not disclosed or

suggested in the prior art. PX116VV. In particular, with regard to the Matsumoto III

Article, Mr. Bookstein noted that it “discloses on page 519 the inside and outside

diameters of a graft from which one may calculate that the particular wall thickness

was .5 mm,” but otherwise failed to “teach any specific criticality attaching to the wall

thickness,” failed to “suggest that any particular importance is to be applied to

Case 2:03-cv-00597-MHM Document 835 Filed 07/29/08 Page 40 of 83
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 41 -

internodal distance (fibril length) or that a range of fibril lengths is critical,” and failed

to teach “that the combination of wall thickness and fibril length is an important

characteristic.” PX116VV at p. PX116.2676.

136. Mr. Santorelli opposed the Motion to Amend by arguing that “the present count or the

contingent count is broader than either count proposed by Goldfarb, [and thus]

substitution of Goldfarb’s proposed counts would be improper,” because “[a]n

interference should always be determined on the broadest count which is available.”

PX116.3794-95. Mr. Santorelli further argued that Dr. Goldfarb had admitted that the

Matsumoto III Article was prior art to the Goldfarb Application which disclosed a

wall thickness of 0.5 mm (within the claimed range of Dr. Goldfarb’s proposed

count), and that wall thickness was not a critical or patentably distinct limitation.

PX116.3797-98. In the alternative, Mr. Santorelli filed a contingent motion to

substitute count 2 by adding an upper limit of 100 microns to the fibril length.

PX116.3945-47.

137. Mr. Bookstein also moved to strike the Cooper Application based on inequitable

conduct in deriving the Cooper Application from the 1974 Detton Memorandum

which was itself based, in part, on the results of Dr. Goldfarb’s work.

PX116.2721-25. Mr. Santorelli opposed the Motion to Strike on the grounds that the

Patent Interference Examiner did not have authority to consider such a motion

because it related to the question of derivation, over which the Board of Patent

Appeals and Interferences had exclusive jurisdiction. PX116.3948-56.

B. PTO DETERMINATION

138. Patent Interference Examiner Michael Sofocleous preliminarily evaluated the motions

made by Mr. Cooper and Dr. Goldfarb in an order dated February 1, 1985, dismissing

Mr. Cooper’s Motion to Dissolve and Goldfarb’s Motion to Strike and referring the

remaining motions to Examiner Pieprz for decision. PX116.4171-73. Examiner

Pieprz issued a final decision on the motions in which he denied Goldfarb’s Motion

Case 2:03-cv-00597-MHM Document 835 Filed 07/29/08 Page 41 of 83
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 42 -

to Dissolve and Motion to Amend, and granted Mr. Cooper’s Contingent Motion to

Substitute. PX116O.

139. With respect to the Matsumoto I and II Articles, Examiner Pieprz found that neither

article “discloses any recognition of the criticality of 5 microns as the lower limit for

fibril length. Neither of these articles discuss fibril length at all - but rather pore size.

Whether pore size is identical to fibril length as alleged has not been proven.”

PX116O at p. 116.4175. He further found that fibril length was the critical variable

to the claimed subject matter, and that wall thickness and density ranges were not

patentably distinct limitations. PX116O at pp. 116.4176-77. 

140. Dr. Goldfarb asked for supervisory review of Examiner Pieprz’s decision, which

resulted in a third count, having a wall thickness limitation of 0.2 to 0.8 mm being

added to the Interference. Thus:

A prosthetic vascular graft of expanded polytetrafluoroethylene having

a microscopic structure of nodes interconnected by fibrils, said graft

comprising:

a wall thickness greater than about 0.2 millimeters and less than about

0.8 millimeters; and 

an average distance between the nodes in the range of between about

5 to 100 microns.

PX116.4185-98, PX116.4228-48, PX116WW, PX116CCC.

C. MR. HAROLD GREEN REAFFIRMS HIS 1976 AFFIDAVIT

141. Harold Green was deposed for a fifth time on July 12, 1988 as part of the Interference.

During his deposition Mr. Green testified that: (i) although Mr. Detton expressed

some “discontent” with his 1976 Affidavits he “didn’t know, and don’t know today,

what the specific problem was that he was uncomfortable with”; (ii) he did not recall

any conversation with Mr. Detton where he indicated he wanted to withdraw his 1976

Affidavits; (iii) he was comfortable with the 1976 Green Affidavit; and (iv) he

Case 2:03-cv-00597-MHM Document 835 Filed 07/29/08 Page 42 of 83
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 43 -

recalled at least one conversation with Dr. Goldfarb regarding the “Goldfarb

Structure,” and that he had called Dr. Goldfarb directly because the specifications

were unlike any he had made before. H. Green Dep., 7/12/88, at pp. 288-97, 312,

352-54 (PX116.8890-99, 8914, 8954-56).

142. A sixth deposition of Harold Green was taken on December 8, 1988. During this

deposition Mr. Green confirmed that his November 9, 1978 deposition was mostly

true but that “one also has to remember that the lawsuit that was involved here,

Goldfarb versus Impra, was acrimonious, at best, and there were a lot of personal

feelings involved here. So perhaps some of these statements may be a bit overstated

as we sit here today.” H. Green Dep., 12/8/88, at p. 434 (PX116.9020). Mr. Green

also reaffirmed the 1976 Green Affidavit regarding small diameter grafts and that

0.7-0.8 millimeters would have been an upper limit for wall thickness at the time of

his affidavit. Id. at p. 452 (PX116.9038).

D. THE PTO AWARDS PRIORITY TO DR. GOLDFARB

143. The parties submitted their final briefs in the Interference in the second half of 1990.

Mr. Lawrence Green, who had assumed primary responsibility for the Goldfarb

Application, argued that Dr. Goldfarb was entitled to priority based on conception,

diligence and reduction to practice without relying on any of Mr. Detton’s deposition

testimony or his 1976 Affidavits. PX116.6813-62. Mr. Santorelli argued that Mr.

Cooper was entitled to priority based on an earlier conception and reduction to

practice (PX116HHH at pp. PX116.6924-83), and further argued that count 3, which

added a wall thickness limitation, should be dissolved because the claimed wall

thickness was known in the prior art and was not patentably distinct from the other

counts. PX116HHH at pp. PX116.6983-91. Finally, Mr. Santorelli argued that

“Cooper was fully entitled to rely on and use the work of the various evaluators who

implanted and harvested expanded PTFE grafts [including Dr. Volder] provided they

made no inventive contribution to the counts. None did.” PX116.6971.

Case 2:03-cv-00597-MHM Document 835 Filed 07/29/08 Page 43 of 83
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 44 -

144. The final hearing in the Interference occurred on November 21, 1991, with the Final

Decision not issuing until almost four years later on October 18, 1995. PX116.7227,

PX116D. The Board found that count 3 – which contained a wall thickness limitation

– was not patentably distinct from count 2 and dissolved it from the Interference.

PX116D at p. 116.7300. The Board determined that Dr. Goldfarb was the first to

invent and awarded priority to Dr. Goldfarb based on a conception and reduction to

practice date no later than July 1973 finding that, although Mr. Cooper may have

established a June 5, 1973 conception, Mr. Cooper had not alleged any diligence to

a reduction to practice. PX116D at p. 116.7328. The Board did not base its decision

on Mr. Detton’s deposition testimony or affidavits but instead cited and relied upon

the testimony of others, including Harold Green, who the Board noted had “confirmed

the truth of his 1976 affidavit and 1975 deposition,” and Mr. Mendenhall. PX116D

at pp. 116.7318-21. 

145. The Board’s decision finding Dr. Goldfarb the first to invent was upheld by the

Federal Circuit on September 1, 1998, which remanded the case back to the Board to

consider whether Dr. Goldfarb’s activities inured to the benefit of Gore. Cooper v.

Goldfarb, 154 F.3d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 1998). On remand, the Board found no inurement

to Mr. Cooper for Dr. Goldfarb’s work. That decision was upheld by the Federal

Circuit on March 2, 2001. Cooper v. Goldfarb, 240 F.3d 1378, 1386 (Fed. Cir. 2001).

Having lost the Interference and its multiple appeals disputing the PTO’s finding that

Dr. Goldfarb was the first to invent, Gore abandoned the Cooper Application.

PX117.4008-09.

E. PLAINTIFFS’ EFFORTS TO OBTAIN THE VOLDER NOTEBOOK

146. On January 6, 1986, Mr. Harold Green, then Impra’s CEO, wrote to Dr. Volder

seeking permission to disclose the Volder Notebook to the PTO in order to disprove

both Mr. Cooper’s and Dr. Goldfarb’s claims of inventorship. DX3052. Despite the

fact that Impra was adverse to Dr. Goldfarb, and thus it “would have been in [Dr.

Case 2:03-cv-00597-MHM Document 835 Filed 07/29/08 Page 44 of 83
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 45 -

Volder’s] financial interests” to disclose his notebook, Dr. Volder never gave

permission to do so. Trial Tr., 11/27/07, at p. 2002 (H. Green) ; Trial Tr., 12/12/07,

at p. 4261 (Thesz). Mr. Green subsequently wrote to Dr. Volder on July 14, 1986

noting that Dr. Volder’s refusal to release his notebook was “a great disappointment”

as it “supposedly describes experiments to predate both the Cooper (Gore) and

Goldfarb patent applications.” DX3053. Mr. Harold Green testified that he had never

read or reviewed the Volder Notebook, and had “no idea what it is” or any knowledge

of its contents. Trial Tr., 11/27/07, at pp. 2002-03 (H. Green); Trial Tr., 12/12/07, p.

4177 (H. Green).

147. C.R. Bard acquired Impra on September 16, 1996. Trial Tr., 11/16/07, at p. 1365

(McDermott). This acquisition extinguished the adverse relationship between Dr.

Goldfarb and Impra. Trial Tr., 11/07/07, at p. 491 (Goldfarb).

148. On August 26, 1996, immediately prior to Bard’s acquisition of Impra, Mr. James

Polese (Impra’s counsel) wrote to Mr. Lawrence Green, noting that he had been in

touch with Dr. Volder and asking if Mr. Green would like the Volder Notebook which

Dr. Volder had indicated he was “confident ... would confirm that Dr. Goldfarb is not

the inventor of the Goldfarb invention.” DX3864. At the time of writing his letter

Mr. Polese had never seen the Volder Notebook and had no knowledge of its contents

or its relevance to the Goldfarb Application. Trial Tr., 11/30/07, at p. 2640 (Polese).

149. Mr. Lawrence Green asked to see a copy of the Volder Notebook, despite not

believing Dr. Volder’s claim of inventorship because it was inconsistent with Mr.

Cooper’s representations that “he was quite familiar with all of the work of all of

these doctors, including Dr. Volder, and that none of these doctors had done anything

inventive and that none of them had made any contribution to his invention.” Trial

Tr., 12/12/07, at p. 4221 (L. Green).

150. In October of 1996, Mr. Polese wrote to Dr. Volder requesting that Dr. Volder send

his notebook directly to Mr. Green, or to have Mr. Sutton or the “current holder” of

Case 2:03-cv-00597-MHM Document 835 Filed 07/29/08 Page 45 of 83
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 46 -

the Volder Notebook (or a copy) send a copy. DX3160; Trial Tr., 11/30/07, at pp.

2632-36; 2641-42 (Polese). Dr. Volder did not send the notebook, thereby

maintaining the confidentiality of the Volder Notebook. Trial Tr., 11/30/07, pp.

2640-41 (Polese); Trial Tr., 12/12/07, at pp. 4221-22 (L. Green). 

151. Indeed, only a month prior to Mr. Polese’s October letter Dr. Volder had written to

Mr. Sutton (who, for many years, had neither represented Impra nor been involved in

the prosecution of the Goldfarb Application) confirming that he desired to maintain

the confidentiality of the Volder Notebook and any copies. DX3095. When the

Goldfarb Application was returned to the patent examiner following the resolution of

the interference in 2001, Mr. Green had forgotten about Mr. Polese’s letters from five

years earlier regarding Dr. Volder. (L. Green Trial Tr., 12/12/07, at p. 4219.)

III. POST-INTERFERENCE PROSECUTION

 A. PTO EXAMINER CONSIDERS ALLEGATIONS OF INEQUITABLE

CONDUCT

152. On September 27, 2000, prior to the second Federal Circuit’s decision, Mr. Lawrence

Green filed a “Submission Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.56” (“Information Disclosure

Statement”) which attached a declaration and complaint filed by Glenn Kelly, M.D.,

of Denver General Hospital and the University of Colorado, against Gore, Dr.

Goldfarb, and Bard alleging that Dr. Kelly was the inventor of the subject matter of

the Goldfarb Application. Dr. Glenn Kelly v. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. et al.,

Civil Action No. 00-N-1691 (D. Colo) (PX115.1515-33). 

153. Using the standard forms of his law firm, Mr. Green submitted a second Statement

Filed Pursuant to the Duty of Disclosure Under 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.56, 1.97 and 1.98 on

April 18, 2001, which attached three PTO-1449 forms. Trial Tr., 12/12/07, at pp.

4189-90 (L. Green). To prepare this Second Information Disclosure Statement and

the accompanying PTO-1449 forms, Mr. Green gathered information to disclose to

the PTO by contacting Mr. Cates, people at Impra, prior counsel from England, and

Case 2:03-cv-00597-MHM Document 835 Filed 07/29/08 Page 46 of 83
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 47 -

by attempting to contact Mr. Sutton. Trial Tr., 12/12/07, at p. 4190 (L. Green). In

addition, Mr. Green and his colleagues “went back through the interference record

and picked out things that we thought would be material to the prosecution of the

[Goldfarb] application.” Id. at p. 4192.

154. Mr. Green did not disclose every document from the approximately 19,000 page

Interference record. For instance, Mr. Green did not disclose the Gore shipping logs

(PX116.17943-52) that were produced during the Interference. Trial Tr., 12/12/07,

at p. 4214 (L. Green). Gore kept a “shipping log” of the ePTFE vascular grafts that

it sent to various hospitals and surgeons, including Dr. Volder, prior to Dr. Goldfarb’s

invention date. DX3028; Trial Tr. 11/16/07, 1770-1771, 1782 (Cooper). The log

recorded at least 34 instances in which Gore manufactured and shipped vascular grafts

having wall thicknesses less than 1.0 mm before February 13, 1973, when Gore sent

the first ePTFE vascular grafts to Dr. Goldfarb. DX3028. 

155. Gore did not present any evidence, however, that any of the doctors who received

these “thin wall” ePTFE tubes actually used them in any of their research. Mr. Green

testified that he did not disclose the Gore shipping logs because:

[T]he only thing they related to was wall thickness. And the patent

office had already determined that the wall thickness was not material,

that it couldn’t form the basis for a separately patentable claim. So

anything that related to wall thickness, in my view, was no longer

material. ... I didn’t think they were material at all.

Trial Tr., 12/12/07, at pp. 4214, 4216 (L. Green).

156. Mr. Green also did not disclose the copy of the Matsumoto III Article that was

obtained during the Interference with a date stamp of October 11, 1973. PX116BBB.

Mr. Green did not disclose this copy because he was “surprised” that anyone would

allege that the Matsumoto III Article was not “dated more than one year prior to the

filing date of the Goldfarb application.” Trial Tr., 12/12/07, at p. 4217 (L. Green).

Mr. Green did not believe there was “any confusion at all” and confirmed that

Case 2:03-cv-00597-MHM Document 835 Filed 07/29/08 Page 47 of 83
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 48 -

Matsumoto III Article had always been treated as “102(b) prior art to [the] Goldfarb

[Application].” Id.

157. Mr. Green also “did not make a special point of pointing” out that the Matsumoto III

Article disclosed a graft with a wall thickness of 0.5 mm. (Id. at p. 4218.) In

particular Mr. Green testified that he did not specially point out the wall thickness of

the Matsumoto III Article because:

Well, in the first place wall thickness was no longer an important

parameter, it was no longer material. And secondly, the article - the

examiner had the article... it was a very easy calculation to make. And

I didn’t see any need to point it out to the examiner that the wall

thickness was .5 millimeters.

Id.

158. As filed with the PTO, the Second Information Disclosure Statement and the

PTO-1449 forms included: (i) those documents previously made of record prior to

the requirement to use the PTO-1449 form; (ii) references uncovered or relied upon

during the Interference; and (iii) documents produced by Dr. Kelly in the Kelly v.

Gore litigation. PX115I at pp. PX115.1594-98; Trial Tr., 12/12/07, at pp. 4189-94 (L.

Green). The April 18, 2001 Statement also made of record both Motions to Dissolve

filed by Mr. Cooper and Dr. Goldfarb in the Interference, and evidence of a

potentially successful alleged use of an ePTFE graft in a human in 1971 by Dr.

Norton. PX115I at pp. PX115.1595-96. Examiner Milano initialed all of the

PTO-1449 forms with a date of “7/2001” indicating that all disclosed information had

been considered. PX115JJ at pp. PX115.1599-1604.

159. Mr. Green did not disclose to the PTO Mr. Cooper’s Motion to Dissolve the

Interference based on Dr. Goldfarb’s alleged misconduct in an attempt to cure

inequitable conduct because Mr. Green “didn’t believe inequitable conduct had

occurred.” Trial Tr., 12/12/07, at p. 4194 (L. Green). Instead, he submitted Mr.

Cooper’s Motion to Dissolve and its attachments “to get the underlying documents

Case 2:03-cv-00597-MHM Document 835 Filed 07/29/08 Page 48 of 83
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 49 -

before the examiner so the examiner could consider them in the prosecution of the

application.” Id. at p. 4193.

B. INEQUITABLE CONDUCT AND PATENTABILITY ISSUES RAISED

DURING THE INTERFERENCE

160. On June 27, 2001, Mr. Lawrence Green and others attended an interview with

Supervisory Patent Examiner Corrine McDermott in Ms. McDermott’s office, which

lasted for several hours. PX115KK; Trial Tr., 12/12/07, at pp. 4197-99 (L. Green) .

Among the other persons present at the interview was Patent Examiner Steven Marcus

who was an interference practice specialist that had been specifically assigned to

assist Examiner McDermott with respect to interference matters concerning the

Goldfarb Application. Trial Tr., 12/12/07, at pp. 4198-99 (L. Green).

161. At the interview, Mr. Green raised the Information Disclosure Statements because he

“felt that the [PTO] needed to consider all of these in making a determination of

patentability.” Id. at p. 4203. Mr. Green and the interference practice specialist

advised Examiner McDermott of the need to consider the materials raised by Mr.

Green in the Information Disclosure Sheets already filed and any future Information

Disclosure Sheets Mr. Green filed. Id. at pp. 4203-04. Mr. Lawrence Green testified

that Examiner McDermott agreed that “she would review the information disclosure

statements.” Id.

162. Pursuant to the agreement from the interview, Mr. Lawrence Green filed an

amendment on July 6, 2001 amending claims 20-23, cancelling claim 25 and adding

claims 25-28. PX115K; Trial Tr., 12/12/07, at pp. 4201-03 (L. Green). With respect

to claim 20, Mr. Green informed the Examiner that Dr. Goldfarb had been required

to add this claim in 1983 for the purpose of an interference and that the amendments

were being made to address potential patentability issues with respect to the claim.

PX115K at pp. PX115.3775-78. Mr. Green filed a Supplemental Statement Filed

Pursuant to the Duty of Disclosure Under 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.56, 1.97 and 1.98 on July

Case 2:03-cv-00597-MHM Document 835 Filed 07/29/08 Page 49 of 83
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 50 -

12, 2001, which included certain foreign language documents, further information

concerning the Kelly v. Gore lawsuit, new allegations of inventorship in a lawsuit

between Dr. Diethrich and Dr. Goldfarb and Bard (Goldfarb v. Diethrich, Civil Action

No. 01-2161-PHX-SRB (D. Ariz.), and copies of previously-filed submissions by Dr.

Campbell regarding inventorship. Trial Tr., 12/12/07, at pp. 4206-10 (L. Green).

C. DISCLOSURE OF ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS TO THE PTO

163. Mr. Lawrence Green filed a Second and Third Supplemental Statement Pursuant to

the Duty of Disclosure on August 14, 2001 and January 16, 2002. PX115OO;

PX115PP. The submissions disclose, inter alia, certain abstracts and additional

information concerning the Goldfarb v. Diethrich litigation. Mr. Green also

submitted substitute PTO-1449 forms which were not in the correct format that were

initialed by the Examiner on January 31, 2002. Trial Tr., 12/12/07, at pp. 4206-08 (L.

Green).

164. At one point Mr. Green also called the Examiner and realized that he did not receive

one of the information disclosure statements. Id. at p. 4211. Mr. Green then

photocopied everything again and re-submitted it, with the Examiner’s assurance that

“he would consider it when it arrived.” Id. Mr. Green testified that during this time

he “[t]ried to disclose everything [he] thought was material to the examiner.” Id.

165. The Notice of Allowance was mailed on July 15, 2001 (PX115.4017) and the issue

fee paid on October 10, 2001 (PX115.4318).

D. MR. DETTON’S 2002 DEPOSITION

166. On August 12, 2002, Mr. Detton was deposed in connection with the Diethrich v.

Goldfarb litigation. Trial Tr., 11/27/07, at pp. 1900-01 (Detton); PX115QQ at p.

PX115.4408. Mr. Lawrence Green attended Mr. Detton’s August 12, 2002

deposition. Trial Tr., 12/12/07, at p. 4212 (L. Green). At his deposition Mr. Detton

gave testimony that Mr. Lawrence Green had not previously heard about how Mr.

Detton thought his affidavits were “untruthful and [that] they were signed under

Case 2:03-cv-00597-MHM Document 835 Filed 07/29/08 Page 50 of 83
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 51 -

duress.” Id.

167. Upon hearing Mr. Detton’s testimony regarding the 1976 Affidavits, Mr. Green

immediately requested the PTO to withdraw the Goldfarb Application from issuance

so that it could consider Mr. Detton’s 2002 deposition testimony. PX115QQ. Mr.

Green testified that he “felt that it was important to bring [the testimony] to the

attention of the patent office.” Trial Tr., 12/12/07, at p. 4212 (L. Green). In

submitting this request Mr. Green stated that he did not have a copy of the transcript

at present and thus could not “make any representation as to whether Mr. Detton’s

recent testimony is cumulative of the information previously considered by the Office

in [the 1980 Detton Affidavit]” or whether “a Rule 56 violation has occurred.”

PX115QQ at p. 115.4409.

168. The petition to withdraw the application from issue was dismissed by the PTO as not

meeting the condition for withdrawal of the application that Mr. Green “actually

assert that the patent is either invalid or unenforceable.” PX115QQ at pp.

115.4412-14; Trial Tr., 12/12/07, at p. 4213 (L. Green). Mr. Green did not make that

representation in the petition because he did not believe inequitable conduct had

occurred. Trial Tr., 12/12/07, at p. 4213 (L. Green).

169. The Goldfarb Patent issued on August 20, 2002 as United States Patent No.

6,436,135. PX1.

IV. POST-ISSUANCE DEVELOPMENTS

170. Shortly after his 2002 deposition testimony, Mr. Detton entered into a consulting

agreement with Gore pursuant to which he was paid an up front fee of $10,000 and

an hourly rate of $250 for his “background knowledge ... with respect to events

during and after his employment at Gore.” DX3814. Mr. Detton has been paid

around $60,000 or $70,000 by Gore for his “consulting” since October 2002. Trial

Tr., 11/27/07, at p. 1903 (Detton).

171. Mr. Detton has admitted committing perjury in the past. Id. at pp. 1914-15. 

Case 2:03-cv-00597-MHM Document 835 Filed 07/29/08 Page 51 of 83
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 52 -

172. According to Mr. Detton’s trial testimony here, he executed the 1976 Affidavits in

front of Mr. Harold Green and Mr. Sutton, he signed them under duress, and he spoke

to Mr. Sutton and wrote him a letter the following Monday repudiating his 1976

Affidavits. Trial Tr., 12/12/07, at pp. 4309-11 (Detton). 

173. In 2004, Mr. Detton produced, for the first time, the “repudiation” letter he

purportedly sent to Mr. Sutton in 1976. The letter Mr. Detton produced in 2004 was

similar to the documents he signed in 1976, but there were notable differences. DX

3084; Trial Tr., 11/27/07, at pp. 1953-56 (Detton). For example, the 2004 version of

the 1976 “repudiation” letter is signed “Dan Detton” and the 1976 Detton Affidavits

and his 1980 affidavit are signed “D. Dan Detton.” DX 3084; PX 115N at PX

115.236; PX 115P at PX 115.291; PX 115X at PX 115.615.

174. Mr. Detton's testimony regarding his signing of the 1976 Affidavits was corroborated

to some extent by Ms. Prestis, his ex-wife. Trial Tr., 12/11/07, at 4010-13 Prestis).

Ms. Prestis, however, testified that Mr. Detton made a “demand for stock” from

Harold Green at the meeting and that Mr. Green's refusal of that demand is what

caused Mr. Detton to become angry. Id. at 4019. 

175. Mr. Detton's testimony was contradicted by Mr. Sutton who testified that he was not

present when Mr. Detton signed the 1976 Affidavits, and that he did not speak to or

receive any correspondence from Mr. Detton in the days or weeks following the

signing of the 1976 Affidavits. Trial Tr., 12/07/07, at pp. 3854-56, 3858-59 (Sutton).

 Mr. Sutton's testimony was corroborated by his secretary, Ms. Shrum, who testified

that neither Mr. Sutton nor Mr. Harold Green were present when Mr. Detton signed

his 1976 Affidavits, which she personally notarized. Trial Tr., 12/12/07, at pp.

4157-59 (Shrum). Ms. Shrum also confirmed that Mr. Detton did not call or send a

letter to Mr. Sutton seeking to withdraw his affidavits and that, if he had done so, she

was “fairly sure I would have recalled [it],” because it was “so soon after signing the

affidavits ... [a]nd he’s talking about the affidavits and grave doubts, and it’s

Case 2:03-cv-00597-MHM Document 835 Filed 07/29/08 Page 52 of 83
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 53 -

something I think I would have remembered.” Id. at pp. 4161-63. 

176. Mr. Sutton's testimony was further corroborated by Mr. Harold Green who testified

that he could not recall being present at any meeting where Mr. Detton signed his

affidavits. Trial Tr., 12/12/07, at 4179 (H. Green).

177. Mr. Harold Green also again confirmed the accuracy of his 1976 affidavit and, even

after being shown numerous documents which Gore asserts contradict his sworn

statements, testified that “I don’t know of any – reading through this document, I

don’t know of anything that I read here that I would be inclined to change.” Trial Tr.,

12/12/07, at p. 4180 (H. Green).

178. On November 2, 2007, a jury trial commenced to decide the infringement portion of

the instant lawsuit. On December 11, 2007, the Jury returned a verdict for the

Plaintiffs on all counts and all claims, including willful infringement. See Jury

Verdict, Doc. 771.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

I. LEGAL STANDARD 

179. Stated generally, patent applicants and their patent attorneys have a duty of candor,

good faith and honesty in their dealings with the PTO. 37 C.F.R. § 1.56(a) (1989).

The duty of candor, good faith and honesty includes the duty to submit truthful

information and the duty to disclose to the PTO information known to the patent

applicants or their attorneys which is material to the examination of the patent

application. Elk Corp. of Dallas v. GAF Bldg. Materials Corp., 168 F.3d 28, 30

(Fed.Cir.1999); 37 C.F.R. § 1.56(a) (1989). The duty of candor extends throughout

the patent’s entire prosecution history. Fox Industries v. Structural Preservation

Systems, Inc., 922 F.2d 801, 803 (Fed.Cir.1991).

180. Breach of the duty of candor, good faith and honesty may constitute inequitable

conduct. Id. If it is established that a patent applicant engaged in inequitable conduct

before the PTO, the entire patent application so procured is rendered unenforceable.

Case 2:03-cv-00597-MHM Document 835 Filed 07/29/08 Page 53 of 83
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 54 -

Kingsdown Medical Consultants, Ltd. v. Hollister Inc., 863 F.2d 867, 877 (Fed. Cir.

1988).

181. "To prove that a patent is unenforceable due to inequitable conduct, the [] infringer

must provide clear and convincing evidence of (1) affirmative misrepresentations of

a material fact, failure to disclose material information, or submission of false material

information, and (2) and intent to deceive.” Impax Labs., Inc. v. Aventis Pharms.,

Inc., 468 F.3d 1366, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2006).

182. Information is deemed material if there is a substantial likelihood that a reasonable

examiner would have considered the material important in deciding whether to issue

the application as a patent. See Elk Corp., 168 F.3d at 31; 37 C.F.R. § 1.56(a).

Accordingly, a reference does not have to be prior art to be material information that

must be disclosed to the PTO. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.56(a) (1989). “The [information]

need only be within a reasonable examiner’s realm of consideration.” Merck & Co.,

Inc. v. Danbury Pharmacal, Inc., 873 F.2d 1418, 1421 (Fed. Cir. 1989).

183. Submission of a false affidavit may be determined to be “inherently material.” Digital

Control, Inc. v. Charles Mach. Works, 437 F.3d 1309, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2006).

184. “[A]n otherwise material reference need not be disclosed if it is merely cumulative of

or less material than other references already disclosed.” Elk Corp., 168 F.3d at 31.

185. While “[m]ateriality does not presume intent, which is a separate and essential

component of inequitable conduct” (Allen Eng’g Corp. v. Bartell Indus., Inc., 299

F.3d 1336, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (internal quotes and citation omitted)), the

materiality of a reference may lead to an inference of intent. Bruno Indep. Living

Aids, Inc. v. Acorn Mobility Servs., 394 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“in the absence

of a credible explanation, intent to deceive is generally inferred from the facts and

circumstances surrounding a knowing failure to disclose material information”).

186. Intent to deceive is rarely established by direct evidence, and therefore, may be

inferred from the facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s overall conduct.

Case 2:03-cv-00597-MHM Document 835 Filed 07/29/08 Page 54 of 83
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 55 -

Molins PLC v. Textron, Inc., 48 F.3d 1172, 1180 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (intent to deceive

is most often proven “by a showing of acts, the most natural consequence of which

are presumably intended by the actor”). For example, “intent may be inferred where

a patent applicant knew, or should have known, that withheld information would be

material to the PTO’s consideration of the patent application.” Critikon, Inc. v.

Becton Dickinson Vascular Access, Inc., 120 F.3d 1253, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 1997). 

187. “Intent to deceive, however, cannot be ‘inferred solely from the fact that information

was not disclosed;’ there must be a factual basis for a finding of deceptive intent.”

Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Endo Pharm., 438 F.3d 1123, 1133-34 (Fed.Cir.2006).

188. Moreover, if the failure to disclose or misrepresentation occurred due to “[s]imple

negligence, oversight, or an erroneous judgment made in good faith,” the intent

element is not satisfied. Speciality Composites v. Cabot Corp., 845 F.2d 981, 982

(Fed. Cir. 1988). A finding of “gross negligence,” likewise, “does not itself justify

an inference of intent to deceive.” Kingsdown, 863 F.2d at 876. However, a patent

applicant cannot “cultivate ignorance, or disregard numerous warnings that material

information or prior art may exist, merely to avoid actual knowledge of that

information or prior art.” FMC Corp. v. Hennessy Industries, Inc., 836 F.2d 521, 526

n.6 (Fed. Cir. 1987).

189. In determining whether the applicant’s overall conduct evidences an intent to deceive

the PTO, the Federal Circuit has emphasized that “the involved conduct, viewed in

light of all the evidence, including evidence indicative of good faith, must indicate

sufficient culpability to require a finding of intent to deceive.” Paragon Podiatry

Laboratory, Inc. v. KLM Laboratories, Inc., 984 F.2d 1182, 1189 (Fed. Cir. 1993)

(internal quotations and citation omitted).

190. Once materiality and intent have been established, the court must conduct a balancing

test to determine “whether the scales tilt to a conclusion that ‘inequitable conduct’

occurred.” Critikon, 120 F.3d at 1256. Generally, “when the misrepresentation or

Case 2:03-cv-00597-MHM Document 835 Filed 07/29/08 Page 55 of 83
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 56 -

withheld information is highly material, a lesser quantum of proof is needed to

establish the requisite intent, ... In contrast, the less material the information, the

greater the proof must be.” Purdue Pharma L.P., 438 F.3d at 1128-29 (internal

citations omitted).

191. Ultimately, the question of whether inequitable conduct occurred is equitable in

nature. The court must make the “equitable judgment concerning whether the

applicant’s conduct is so culpable that the patent should not be enforced.” Life

Techns., Inc. v. Clontech Labs., Inc., 224 F.3d 1320, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2000). During

this step of the analysis, the court determines “whether the material

misrepresentations or omissions in question are sufficiently serious in light of the

evidence of intent to deceive, under all the circumstances, to warrant the severe

sanction of holding the patent unenforceable.” Hoffman-La Roche, Inc. v. Promega

Corp., 323 F.3d 1354, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2003).

II. THE ACCUSED CONDUCT

A. ALLEGED FAILURE TO ADVISE THE PTO OF DR. VODER’S

CONNECTION WITH IMPRA IN HIS 1976 AFFIDAVIT

192. Gore asserts that Dr. Goldfarb and/or his attorneys committed inequitable conduct

with regard to Dr. Volder’s 1976 Affidavit by (i) failing to disclose to the PTO Dr.

Volder’s affiliation with Impra in the 1976 Volder Affidavit, (ii) by not describing the

full scope of Dr. Volder’s work with ePTFE grafts in the 1976 Volder Affidavit.

1. MATERIALITY 

193. The 1976 Volder Affidavit was not submitted to the PTO in response to a request for

an impartial affidavit from the patentee. Instead, Mr. Sutton submitted the 1976

Volder Affidavit without any direction from the PTO. 

194. Plaintiffs had a duty to disclose the connection between Dr. Volder and Impra. See

Ferring B.V. v. Barr Lab., Inc., 437 F.3d 1181, 1195 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (finding that an

inventor and his assignee must “disclose the known relationships and affiliations of

Case 2:03-cv-00597-MHM Document 835 Filed 07/29/08 Page 56 of 83
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

 In Ferring the patent applicant submitted affidavits from a number of scientists, but

failed to disclose to the PTO that those scientists had either received research funding from,

or had previously worked for, the applicant. 437 F.3d 1184. Plaintiffs distinguish Ferring

by asserting that these affidavits were submitted at the examiner’s prompting, thereby putting

the applicant on notice as to the materiality of the affiant’s relationship. 437 F.3d at 1184.

However, Ferring is not so limited. In fact, in Espeed, Inc. v. Brokertec USA, L.L.C., 480

F.3d 1129, 1136 (Fed. Cir. 2006), the Federal Circuit treated Ferring more expansively,

stating, “we concluded that the failure to disclose possible bias of the declarants constituted

a material omission where the declarations were submitted to overcome a prior art rejection.”

Thus, Ferring applies here. 

- 57 -

the declarants so that those interests can be considered in weighing the

declarations”).4

195. The 1976 Volder Affidavit does not state that Dr. Volder has no ownership interest

in Impra, or that he is merely a disinterested researcher. 

196. Moreover, there is no evidence that Dr. Volder was an officer of Impra at the time he

signed his 1976 affidavit. 

197. Dr. Volder and Impra became adverse to Dr. Goldfarb in September 1977 –

approximately one year after Dr. Volder signed his 1976 Volder Affidavit and nearly

one year prior to the next responsive Office Action. At the time the PTO considered

the 1976 Volder Affidavit, Dr. Volder had no interest in the Goldfarb Application. 

198. Despite it being in Dr. Volder’s and Impra’s financial interests, Dr. Volder never

repudiated his affidavit once his interests became adverse to Dr. Goldfarb, or at any

other time. 

199. Based on these facts, the omission of Dr. Volder’s ownership interest in Impra was

not material. 

2. INTENT

200. Gore cites Paragon Podiatry Lab., Inc. v. KLM Labs., Inc., 984 F.2d 1182, 1191 (Fed.

Cir. 1993), to assert that the Court should find inequitable conduct here because in

Paragon the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s finding of intent to mislead

Case 2:03-cv-00597-MHM Document 835 Filed 07/29/08 Page 57 of 83
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 58 -

the PTO by the applicant’s failure to disclose that three affiants either owned stock

in, or had been engaged as a consultant by, the assignee. However, Gore fails to note

that in Paragon, the PTO examiner specifically requested an “affidavit from a

disinterested third party” for the purpose of assessing obviousness. Id. The three

affidavits the applicant submitted were from professionals in the field which

affirmatively stated that the affiant had not “been in the past employed by nor do I

intend in the future to become employed by” the assignee. Paragon is distinguishable

in that, here, there is not evidence of active misleading statements made to the PTO.

Though it is true that Dr. Volder’s stock ownership was not disclosed, the number of

shares Dr. Volder owned was not sizable and, more importantly, it is unclear whether

anyone knew that Dr. Volder owned these shares or whether Dr. Volder had ever

informed Mr. Sutton, who drafted Dr. Volder’s affidavit, as to his stock ownership.

201. There is no evidence that Mr. Sutton was aware of Dr. Volder’s ownership interest

in Impra at the time he submitted the 1976 Volder Affidavit. To the contrary, Mr.

Sutton included in the 1976 Green and Baker affidavits the fact that both affiants were

affiliated with Impra. It does not appear that Mr. Sutton was trying to hide any

affiliations, rather, he apparently took steps to disclose an affiant’s relationship to

Impra when he was aware of it.

202. Nor is there any evidence that either Dr. Goldfarb or Dr. Volder were aware that Dr.

Volder should disclose such ownership interest in the 1976 Volder Affidavit. 

203. There is no duty to disclose information of which a person reasonably was not aware.

See the Manual of Patent Examination and Procedure, § 2001.04 (5th ed. rev.3, 1986)

(stating that there is a duty to disclose to the Patent and Trademark Office all material

information a party is aware of, or reasonably should have been aware of, regardless

of the source of or how the party became aware of the information). 

204. The Court notes that Mr. Sutton is a member in good standing of the Arizona bar, he

has taught at the Arizona State University law school, and the record appears to

Case 2:03-cv-00597-MHM Document 835 Filed 07/29/08 Page 58 of 83
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 59 -

support that the PTO found him credible. Based on Mr. Sutton’s deposition testimony

presented during trial, his character, and his demeanor there appears to be no basis for

the Court to find Mr. Sutton not credible. 

205. Accordingly, because there is no evidence that Mr. Sutton knew of Dr. Volder’s

ownership interest in Impra at the time he filed the 1976 Volder Affidavit; there is no

evidence that Drs. Volder or Goldfarb were aware that such information was material;

there is no evidence that Mr. Sutton or Drs. Goldfarb and Volder intentionally omitted

information regarding Dr. Volder’s ownership interest from the 1976 Volder

Affidavit; and because the Court finds Mr. Sutton’s testimony credible, Gore has

failed to establish an intent to mislead or deceive the PTO by clear and convincing

evidence.

3. BALANCE

206. The Court concludes that Dr. Goldfarb and his attorneys did not commit inequitable

conduct with respect to Dr. Volder’s affiliation and his 1976 Volder Affidavit because

there was no misrepresentation in the 1976 Volder Affidavit, any omission was not

material to the prosecution of the ‘135 patent, and no intent to mislead or deceive the

PTO has been demonstrated. Thus, Gore has failed to establish the existence of

inequitable conduct with regard to Dr. Volder’s 1976 Affidavit by clear and

convincing evidence.

B. ALLEGED FAILURE TO ADVISE THE PTO THAT DR. BAKER

WITHDREW AND REPUDIATED PARAGRAPH 6 OF HIS 1976

AFFIDAVIT 

207. The 1976 Baker Affidavit states that “[u]nder no conditions presently known ...

would [Dr. Baker] use or recommend the use of a graft characterized by a wall

thickness of greater than approximately .75 mm ... .” 

208. At his 1978 deposition, Dr. Baker confirmed that this statement was true and correct

at the time he signed his 1976 affidavit, but that subsequent clinical experience has

Case 2:03-cv-00597-MHM Document 835 Filed 07/29/08 Page 59 of 83
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 60 -

led him to want to change all of Paragraph 6 of his 1976 affidavit because he “now

believed that our thinking at that time was not correct.” Such later-acquired scientific

knowledge is not relevant to a determination of patentability, which is concerned with

the scientific knowledge at the time of the filing or invention date of the Goldfarb

Application (Kopykake Enters., Inc. v. Lucks Co., 264 F.3d 1377, 1383

(Fed.Cir.2001), which was four years earlier than Dr. Baker’s deposition testimony.

209. The 1978 deposition testimony of Dr. Baker from the Goldfarb v. Impra litigation was

disclosed to the PTO on at least three separate occasions, including: 

- In or around 1980, as part of the Cooper Application in an attempt to show that

Dr. Goldfarb was not the inventor of the claimed subject matter;

- In or around 1984, as part of Mr. Cooper’s Motion to Dissolve filed during the

Interference; and 

- In 2001 or 2002, during the resumed ex parte prosecution of the Goldfarb

Application following the completion of the Interference in which Mr.

Cooper’s Motion to Dissolve was disclosed and expressly discussed with the

examiner. 

210. Information that is disclosed to the PTO cannot be considered to be withheld. Scripps

Clinic & Research Found. v. Genentech, Inc., 927 F.2d 1565, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1991)

(“When a reference was before the examiner, whether through the examiner’s search

or the applicant’s disclosure, it can not be deemed to have been withheld from the

examiner.”). 

211. Accordingly, Gore has not demonstrated that Dr. Goldfarb and his attorneys withheld

information, let alone material information, from the PTO regarding Dr. Baker’s 1978

deposition testimony.

1. MATERIALITY

212. Further, both the PTO and the Federal Circuit expressly determined that wall

thickness was not a patentable distinction with respect to the claimed subject matter

Case 2:03-cv-00597-MHM Document 835 Filed 07/29/08 Page 60 of 83
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 61 -

and that wall thicknesses in the 0.2 to 0.8 mm range were either known or obvious

from the prior art. 

213. Accordingly, because Dr. Baker’s 1978 deposition testimony does not contradict or

vary the statements made in the 1976 Baker Affidavit; Dr. Baker’s 1978 deposition

refers only to later developed scientific knowledge which is not relevant to the

determination of patentability; and the PTO and Federal Circuit determined that wall

thickness is not a patentable distinction, Dr. Baker’s 1978 deposition testimony is not

material to the prosecution of the ‘135 patent. 

2. INTENT

214. There is no evidence that Dr. Goldfarb or his attorneys intended to withhold the 1978

deposition testimony of Dr. Baker from the PTO. To the contrary, the evidence shows

that: (i) Mr. Cates first disclosed the existence of the Goldfarb v. Impra lawsuit to the

PTO and sought to make “the record of those proceedings ... available to the

Commissioner for consideration”; (ii) Mr. Bookstein again disclosed the Goldfarb v.

Impra litigation to the PTO and, knowing that the examiner already had read

numerous transcripts from the Cooper Application, disclosed the 1978 Baker

deposition and sought to make it available to the examiner should he wish to review

it; and (iii) Mr. Lawrence Green expressly disclosed Mr. Cooper’s Motion to Dissolve

to the PTO, which contained Dr. Baker’s testimony, and informed the PTO that it

needed to consider this motion. 

215. The evidence further shows that Dr. Goldfarb and his attorneys did not believe that

the 1978 deposition testimony of Dr. Baker was material to the patentability of the

Goldfarb Application. Specifically: (i) Mr. Cates wrote a letter to his Australian

counterpart noting the “lack of candor” and “evasive and nonspecific” answers

provided by Dr. Baker; (ii) Mr. Bookstein informed the PTO that he did not

understand the Baker deposition testimony to repudiate or contradict the 1976 Baker

Affidavit in any material respect; and (iii) the PTO and Federal Circuit had

Case 2:03-cv-00597-MHM Document 835 Filed 07/29/08 Page 61 of 83
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 62 -

determined that wall thickness was not a patentable distinction, and thus Mr.

Lawrence Green believed that “anything that related to wall thickness, in my view,

was no longer material.” 

216. Mr. Lawrence Green testified during trial. His testimony appeared sincere and

forthcoming. There was nothing in Mr. Green’s testimony to give the Court a basis

to question his credibility. 

217. There can be no intent to mislead or deceive when information is disclosed to the PTO

and a good faith belief as to lack of materiality is established. Speciality Composites,

845 F.2d at 982. Accordingly, because Dr. Goldfarb and his attorneys expressly

disclosed the Goldfarb v. Impra litigation and the 1978 Baker deposition testimony

to the PTO; and Plaintiffs have presented substantial evidence demonstrating that Dr.

Goldfarb and his attorneys had a good faith belief that the 1978 Baker deposition was

not material to the prosecution of Goldfarb Application, Gore has failed to

demonstrate an intent to mislead or deceive the PTO by clear and convincing

evidence. 

3. BALANCE

218. Gore has failed to establish the existence of inequitable conduct by clear and

convincing evidence for the following reasons: (1) the 1978 deposition testimony of

Dr. Baker was disclosed to the PTO at various times; (2) the PTO found wall

thickness not material to the prosecution of the ‘135 patent; and (3) no intent to

mislead the PTO has been demonstrated.

219. Without clear and convincing evidence of inequitable conduct, there was no

compelling need for Mr. Lawrence Green to cure any inequitable conduct by

expressly disclosing the 1978 Baker deposition testimony and any related alleged

inequitable conduct to the PTO during the resumed ex parte prosecution following the

conclusion of the Interference.

Case 2:03-cv-00597-MHM Document 835 Filed 07/29/08 Page 62 of 83
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 63 -

C. FILING AND RELYING ON TWO 1976 DETTON AFFIDAVITS

220. Gore asserts that Dr. Goldfarb and/or his attorneys committed inequitable conduct by

failing to disclose to the PTO that Mr. Detton allegedly repudiated his 1976

Affidavits.

1. KNOWLEDGE OF ALLEGED REPUDIATION

221. Mr. Detton asserts that he sought to withdraw his affidavits before they were

submitted to the PTO and that he informed Mr. Sutton of this by telephone and letter

within a day or two after signing them. 

222. Mr. Detton’s testimony is directly contradicted by the testimony of three witness: Mr.

Sutton, Ms. Shrum and Mr. Harold Green. 

223. Mr. Detton has admitted to perjuring himself in the past. 

224. Since 2002, Gore has paid Mr. Detton over $60,000 for his cooperation with regard

to the ‘135 patent proceedings. 

225. Dr. Goldfarb and his then attorney, Mr. Swenson, a member in good standing of the

Arizona bar, further testified that Mr. Detton denied wishing to change his 1976

affidavits. 

226. Gore has not demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that Dr. Goldfarb and

his attorneys submitted the 1976 Detton Affidavits knowing that Mr. Detton had

repudiated them.

2. MATERIALITY

227. The 1980 Detton Affidavit was provided to the Examiner by Mr. Bookstein in a

December 10, 1981 response to an Office Action. This affidavit expressly stated that

the Detton-Cooper Source Affidavit, which incorporated the Second Detton Affidavit,

was “not correct” had been signed “under duress.” The Examiner acknowledged

having already received and considered the 1980 Detton Affidavit – which he

recognized retracted Mr. Detton’s testimony regarding Dr. Goldfarb’s inventorship

– in the prior office action. Dr. Goldfarb and his attorneys thus expressly disclosed,

Case 2:03-cv-00597-MHM Document 835 Filed 07/29/08 Page 63 of 83
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 64 -

and the PTO acknowledged, Mr. Detton’s repudiation of his 1976 Affidavits to the

PTO. In addition, the 1980 Detton Affidavit was submitted again in 2001. 

228. Mr. Bookstein further did not misrepresent the 1980 Detton Affidavit to the PTO. Mr.

Bookstein did not state that he “could not” vouch for the affidavit or that it “does not”

seek to vary or contradict the 1976 Detton Affidavits. To the contrary, he merely

stated that the 1980 Detton Affidavit was submitted to the PTO “without vouching”

for it and noted that it “does not appear” to contradict or vary the Second Detton

Affidavit. A reasonable examiner would have reviewed the 1980 Detton Affidavit

and formed his or her own opinions, including that the 1980 Detton Affidavit was

repudiating both, one, or none of his 1976 affidavits, and thus Gore has not

demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence any misrepresentation by Mr.

Bookstein concerning the 1980 Detton Affidavit. 

229. The 1978 deposition transcripts of Mr. Harold Green and Dr. Baker concerning Mr.

Detton’s statements at the Golden Eagle restaurant were also disclosed to the PTO.

First, they were disclosed to the Examiner in the Cooper Application. Second, they

were disclosed to the PTO during the Interference during the preliminary motion

period in Mr. Cooper’s Motion to Dissolve. Third, Mr. Lawrence Green disclosed

Mr. Cooper’s Motion to Dissolve to the PTO after the Interference, which the PTO

considered. Thus, Gore has not demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that

Dr. Goldfarb and his attorneys withheld any information, let alone material

information, concerning Mr. Detton’s repudiation of his 1976 Affidavits from the

PTO.

230. Mr. Detton’s repudiation of his 1976 Affidavits would only affect his testimony

regarding his receipt of Dr. Goldfarb’s specifications. Dr. Goldfarb’s inventorship,

however, was independently and separately corroborated by the 1976 Green Affidavit,

which has never been repudiated or said to be incorrect, and the deposition testimony

of Mr. Harold Green and Mr. Mendenhall. The 1976 Detton Affidavits are thus not

Case 2:03-cv-00597-MHM Document 835 Filed 07/29/08 Page 64 of 83
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 65 -

material to the prosecution of the ‘135 patent, which the Examiner himself expressly

recognized in holding the 1980 Detton Affidavit to be of “no effect” on the status of

the Goldfarb Application.

231. The 1978 deposition transcripts of Mr. Harold Green and Dr. Baker do not establish

that Mr. Detton repudiated his 1976 Affidavits, only that he was uncomfortable with

certain aspects of them and that he wanted to know the best way to withdraw them.

The 1978 deposition testimony also fails to identify any facts that Mr. Detton alleged

to be incorrect, false or misleading in his 1976 Affidavits. These deposition

transcripts, therefore, are cumulative of the 1980 Detton Affidavit and thus not

material to the prosecution of the ‘135 patent.

3. INTENT

232. There is no evidence that Dr. Goldfarb and his attorneys intended to mislead the PTO

regarding Mr. Detton's repudiation of his 1976 Affidavits. To the contrary, the facts

show that:

- Mr. Detton never identified what he alleged was incorrect, false or misleading

about his 1976 Affidavits prior to his 2002 deposition. 

- Mr. Detton expressly told Dr. Goldfarb and his attorneys that he did not want

to repudiate his affidavits. 

- Dr. Goldfarb and his attorneys offered Mr. Detton multiple opportunities to

clarify his 1976 Affidavits, which he declined to do. 

- Dr. Goldfarb’s attorneys had a good faith belief that Mr. Detton’s repudiation

of his 1976 Affidavits was immaterial to the determination of Dr. Goldfarb’s

inventorship. 

- Dr. Goldfarb’s attorneys disclosed the 1980 Detton Affidavit to the PTO. 

- The 1978 deposition testimony of Mr. Harold Green and Dr. Baker was

disclosed to the PTO. 

233. Thus, Gore has not demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that Dr. Goldfarb

Case 2:03-cv-00597-MHM Document 835 Filed 07/29/08 Page 65 of 83
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 66 -

or his attorneys intended to withhold any information regarding Mr. Detton’s

repudiation of the 1976 Detton Affidavits from the PTO.

4. BALANCE 

234. The Court notes that Mr. Detton has perjured himself previously. The Court finds his

testimony highly suspect and lacking in credibility. 

235. As stated above, the “repudiation” letter Mr. Detton produced in 2004, which he

claims he signed in 1996, was similar to the other documents he signed in 1976, but

there are notable differences. DX 3084; Trial Tr., 11/27/07, at pp. 1953-56 (Detton).

For example, the 2004 version of the 1976 “repudiation” letter is signed “Dan Detton”

and the 1976 Detton Affidavits and his 1980 affidavit are signed “D. Dan Detton.”

DX 3084; PX 115N at PX 115.236; PX 115P at PX 115.291; PX 115X at PX 115.615.

236. Because Mr. Detton's claimed repudiation of his 1976 Affidavits was disclosed to the

PTO, is not material to the prosecution of the ‘135 patent, and no intent to mislead the

PTO has been demonstrated, Gore has not established the existence of inequitable

conduct by clear and convincing evidence.

D. ALLEGED RELIANCE ON THE PTO’S ERROR IN CONNECTION

WITH WALL THICKNESS OF THE PRIOR ART MATSUMOTO

PUBLICATION

237. Gore asserts that Dr. Goldfarb and/or his attorneys committed inequitable conduct

with respect to the Matsumoto III Article by failing to correct the examiner's apparent

misinterpretation of the Matsumoto III article as having a wall thickness of 0.5 mm.

1. REPRESENTATION

238. Dr. Goldfarb and his attorneys expressly disclosed the Matsumoto III Article as prior

art to the PTO, both in the specification of the Goldfarb Application and in a

Pre-Examination Amendment and Citation of Prior Art. 

239. The examiner had the Matsumoto III Article which discloses an inside and outside

diameter of the ePTFE grafts used from which one of ordinary skill can readily

Case 2:03-cv-00597-MHM Document 835 Filed 07/29/08 Page 66 of 83
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 67 -

calculate a wall thickness of 0.5 mm. 

240. Neither in Dr. Goldfarb's 1976 “amendment” response to the PTO's office action

concerning the Matsumoto III Article, nor at any time thereafter, did Dr. Goldfarb or

his attorneys ever represent to the PTO that the Matsumoto III Article had a wall

thickness different than 0.5 mm. Rather, during the Interference Dr. Goldfarb's

attorney, Mr. Bookstein, expressly represented to the PTO that wall thickness of the

Matsumoto III Article could readily be calculated as 0.5 mm. 

241. Information that is disclosed to the PTO cannot be considered withheld or

misrepresented. Scripps Clinic, 927 F.2d at 1582. 

242. In his April 1976 response to Examiner Frinks’s rejection, Dr. Goldfarb never

asserted that the wall thickness of the graft disclosed in the Matsumoto III article was

1.0 mm and there is no evidence that Dr. Goldfarb or his lawyers recognized in April

1976 that the Examiner was wrong. Although Dr. Goldfarb’s counsel argued the

importance of wall thickness, he did not distinguish Matsumoto III solely based on

wall thickness but argued that the claims were allowable because the article failed to

disclose the “relationship between internodal distance and wall thickness” and that

“these two parameters are not independent.” 

243. Dr. Goldfarb testified to the best of his recollection as to things that happened many

years in the past. Dr. Goldfarb appeared sincere in his testimony. There was nothing

in Dr. Goldfarb’s testimony that would lead the Court to question his credibility. 

244. Accordingly, because the Matsumoto III Article, from which wall thickness could

readily be calculated, was disclosed to the PTO; Dr. Goldfarb and his attorneys did

not misrepresent the wall thickness of the Matsumoto III Article; the correct wall

thickness of the Matsumoto III Article was disclosed to the PTO during the

Interference; and because the Court finds Dr. Goldfarb’s testimony credible, Gore has

failed to present clear and convincing evidence that Dr. Goldfarb and his attorneys

misrepresented or withheld information from the PTO.

Case 2:03-cv-00597-MHM Document 835 Filed 07/29/08 Page 67 of 83
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 68 -

2. MATERIALITY

245. During the Interference, the PTO determined that the count was patentable over the

Matsumoto III Article despite the disclosure by Dr. Goldfarb's attorneys that the

Matsumoto III Article had a wall thickness of 0.5 mm. In particular, the PTO also

determined that wall thickness was not a patentable distinction with respect to the

claimed subject matter and that wall thicknesses in the 0.2 to 0.8 mm range were

either known or obvious from the prior art. 

246. Accordingly, because wall thickness is not a patentable distinction and because the

PTO expressly determined the count of the Interference to be patentable over the

Matsumoto III Article knowing that it disclosed a wall thickness of 0.5 mm, the wall

thickness of the Matsumoto III Article is not material to the prosecution of the '135

patent. 

3. INTENT 

247. Gore has not present sufficient evidence to show that Dr. Goldfarb and his attorneys

were aware of the correct wall thickness of the Matsumoto III Article when they

disclosed the Matsumoto III Article to the PTO, or that they were aware of the

examiner's error in calculating the wall thickness of the Matsumoto III Article at or

about the time of the response to the first office action. Indeed, Dr. Goldfarb's

attorney noted that there was “substantial confusion” regarding the wall thickness of

the Matsumoto III Article at this time. 

248. Dr. Goldfarb and his attorneys disclosed the correct wall thickness to the PTO during

the Interference. 

249. Following the conclusion of the Interference, Dr. Goldfarb and his attorneys did not

feel the need to specifically point out the wall thickness of the Matsumoto III Article

because the PTO had determined that wall thickness was not a patentable distinction.

250. Accordingly, because there is no evidence that Dr. Goldfarb or his attorneys were

aware of the correct wall thickness of the Matsumoto III Article prior to the response

Case 2:03-cv-00597-MHM Document 835 Filed 07/29/08 Page 68 of 83
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 69 -

in the first office action; Dr. Goldfarb and his attorneys explicitly disclosed the correct

wall thickness to the PTO during the Interference; and Dr. Goldfarb and his attorneys

did not believe that it was necessary to specifically point out the wall thickness of the

Matsumoto III Article after the Interference, Gore has failed to establish by clear and

convincing evidence that Dr. Goldfarb and his attorneys intentionally misrepresented

or withheld any information from the PTO.

4. BALANCE

251. Because Dr. Goldfarb and his attorneys did not misrepresent to the PTO, or withhold

from the PTO, the wall thickness of the Matsumoto III Article, the wall thickness of

the Matsumoto III Article is not material to the prosecution of the ‘135 patent, and no

intent to mislead or deceive the PTO has been demonstrated, Gore has not established

the existence of inequitable conduct by clear and convincing evidence.

E. ALLEGED FAILURE TO PROVIDE THE PTO WITH DR. VOLDER’S

WORK, NOTEBOOK, AND POSSIBLE ROLE AS AN INVENTOR OR

CO-INVENTOR

252. Gore asserts that Dr. Goldfarb and/or his attorneys committed inequitable conduct by

failing to disclose to the PTO the Volder Notebook and Dr. Volder’s other alleged

claims of inventorship. 

1. MATERIALITY

253. A short time line concerning Dr. Volder's Notebook and work provides understanding

into the materiality of the Volder Notebook. Thus: 

- Early 1970s - Dr. Volder was one of several researchers who received ePTFE

tubes from Gore to research its use as an artificial vascular graft. 

- July 1973 - Dr. Goldfarb conceived and reduced to practice his invention. 

- August 1973 - Dr. Volder published the Volder A-V Shunts Article. 

- Summer 1974 - Dr. Volder met with Mr. Sutton several times to discuss and

investigate inventorship. 

- September 4, 1974 - Dr. Volder's personal attorney, Mr. Drummond, sent a

Case 2:03-cv-00597-MHM Document 835 Filed 07/29/08 Page 69 of 83
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

 If Dr. Volder's work and the Volder Notebook were material to the ‘135 patent as

Gore asserts, Gore logically would have relied on Dr. Volder’s work for the Cooper

Application and recognized Dr. Volder as an inventor. Instead, Gore asserted that Mr.

Cooper was the inventor. This assertion eventually was rejected by the Board of Patent

Appeals and Interferences and the Federal Circuit. Goldfarb v. Cooper, Interference No.

101,100 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. Oct. 18, 1995) (Final Decision); Goldfarb v. Cooper, Patent

- 70 -

letter to Mr. Sutton claiming that Dr. Volder should be the named inventor. 

- September 9, 1974 - Mr. Sutton met with Drs. Volder, Goldfarb and Gall, as

well as Messrs. Harold Green and Richard Mendenhall to discuss inventorship

of the draft application. During that meeting it was determined that Dr.

Goldfarb was the inventor of the subject matter at issue. 

- September 10, 1974 - Mr. Sutton summarized the September 9, 1974 meeting

in a memorandum, signed by Dr. Volder, stating that it was “unanimously

determined that IMPRA's patent application should be filed in the name of Dr.

Goldfarb.” 

- Either September 1974 or April 1977 - Dr. Volder provided to Mr. Sutton a

copy of the Volder Notebook to retain “in confidence.” Mr. Sutton describes

the Volder Notebook as having a “delightful correlation” with the Volder A-V

Shunts article. The Volder Notebook appears to be cumulative of the Volder

A-V Shunts article and, therefore, is not material to the prosecution of the ‘135

patent.

- July 26, 1976 - Dr. Volder signed his affidavit and submitted it to the PTO

stating that Dr. Goldfarb's invention was “by no means obvious.” 

- October 4, 1977 - after conducting an additional search, Gore represented to

the PTO that Mr. Cooper – who “worked closely with the surgeons” and had

access to all of their work, including Dr. Volder’s – was the proper inventor.

 Later during the Interference, Gore repeated the position that none of the

surgeons made any inventive contribution, including Dr. Volder.5

Case 2:03-cv-00597-MHM Document 835 Filed 07/29/08 Page 70 of 83
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Interference No. 101,100 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. Dec. 19, 1996) (Reconsideration Decision).

 Cooper v. Goldfarb, 154 F.3d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 1998). 

- 71 -

- February 1978 - After being sued by Dr. Goldfarb, Impra alleges through

letters, interrogatories and the deposition testimony of Dr. Baker, that Dr.

Volder was making claims to the inventorship of the Goldfarb Application.

Impra however, never presented any first hand or documentary evidence of

these claims. 

- Late-1970s and early-1980s - Dr. Goldfarb's counsel made repeated attempts

to obtain the Volder Notebook from Mr. Sutton, Mr. Green (Impra's president

at the time), and Dr. Volder himself. No response is received to any of these

attempts, as Dr. Volder continued to maintain the confidentiality of the Volder

Notebook. 

- In 1986, Mr. Green attempted to obtain the Volder Notebook, despite having

no knowledge of its contents, in the hope that it would somehow help him

“torpedo” both the Goldfarb and Cooper Applications. Despite the fact that

as a shareholder of Impra it would have been in Dr. Volder's interest to prevent

the Goldfarb Application from issuing as a patent, he still did not give

permission for Mr. Green to have the Volder Notebook. 

- Early 1990s - Mr. Sutton began to wind down his law practice and recycle old

documents as a result. At this point, because no one had requested the copy

of the Volder Notebook from him for over ten years and he had no legal or

ethical obligation to maintain it, he likely destroyed the copy of the Volder

Notebook as he closed up his practice. 

- In 1996, Mr. Lawrence Green asked Mr. Polese to obtain the Volder Notebook

for his review. Dr. Volder did not provide his notebook but instead told Mr.

Sutton to maintain the confidentiality of his copy of the Volder Notebook. 

Case 2:03-cv-00597-MHM Document 835 Filed 07/29/08 Page 71 of 83
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

6

 Such testimony also could have shown if someone knew in 1976 that Dr. Volder

was a shareholder of Impra and that this information should have been disclosed to the PTO.

See II.A. above. 

- 72 -

- In 2001, Mr. Lawrence Green, who never believed any claim of Dr. Volder's

inventorship, forgot about Mr. Polese's 1996 letter when preparing information

disclosure sheets to submit to the PTO. 

254. For the above reasons, neither the Volder Notebook, nor the various unsubstantiated

third party claims of Dr. Volder’s inventorship are material to the prosecution of the

‘135 patent.

255. Gore has not met the materiality prong with regard to Dr. Volder’s claims of

inventorship, especially in light of Dr. Volder’s affidavit and the testimony of

numerous people who attended the September 9, 1974 meeting. Dr. Volder and

others present, including Dr. Gall, Mr. Harold Green, Mr. Mendenhall, and Dr.

Goldfarb, have signed affidavits or testified that the outcome of that September 1974

meeting was the determination that Dr. Goldfarb was the inventor based on the

scientific merits of his research. 

256. Moreover, Gore’s attorneys met with Dr. Volder in the Netherlands, yet failed to

memorialize his testimony, despite the fact that Dr. Volder was “available” during the

fact discovery period of this litigation and was paid $1,000 a day by Gore for his

cooperation. Trial Tr., 11/30/07, at 2664-65 (Kröner). Such testimony could have

established whether Dr. Volder had a valid claim of inventorship.6

257. Indeed, Dr. Volder was never deposed in this or any of its preceding litigation. 

2. INTENT

258. Mr. Sutton conducted an investigation of Dr. Volder's inventorship claim prior to

filing the Goldfarb Application, the result of which was that Dr. Volder signed an

acknowledgment that Dr. Goldfarb was the sole inventor. Dr. Volder has never

withdrawn that written acknowledgment. As a result of his investigation, Mr. Sutton

Case 2:03-cv-00597-MHM Document 835 Filed 07/29/08 Page 72 of 83
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

7

 The date Mr. Sutton was given a copy of the Volder Notebook is controverted. Mr.

Sutton testified that he received it in April 1977, whereas Dr. Goldfarb testified that Mr.

Sutton had it in April 1974. 

- 73 -

did not believe that there would be an inventorship claim by Dr. Volder because “I

knew precisely that he fell outside the claim.” 

259. Mr. Sutton also reviewed the Volder Notebook and concluded that it contained the

same information as was published in the Volder A-V Shunts Article. Mr. Sutton,

thus, had a good faith belief that the Volder Notebook was cumulative to the prior art

already before the PTO, and, thus, immaterial to the prosecution of the ‘135 patent.

260. Mr. Sutton received a copy of the Volder Notebook “in confidence” in April 19777

and never received permission from Dr. Volder to disclose it. Thus, the Volder

Notebook has been suppressed for over 30-years. Because work that has been

“abandoned, suppressed, or concealed” is not prior art (E.I. du Pont de Nemours &

Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 849 F.2d 1430, 1437 (Fed. Cir. 1988); see also Trial

Tr., 12/04/07, at 2954-55 (Bjorge). Trial Tr., 12/05/07, at 3311-12 (Thesz); Trial Tr.,

12/12/07, at 4261-62 (Thesz)), Dr. Goldfarb and his attorneys had formed a good faith

belief that the Volder Notebook was immaterial. 

261. The Court again notes that Mr. Sutton is a member in good standing of the Arizona

bar, he has taught at the Arizona State University law school, and the record appears

to support that the PTO found him credible. Based on Mr. Sutton’s deposition

testimony presented during trial, his character, and his demeanor, there appears to be

no basis for the Court to find Mr. Sutton not credible. 

262. Mr. Sutton's power of attorney to prosecute the Goldfarb Application was revoked in

January 1978, at which point in time Mr. Sutton become adverse to Dr. Goldfarb. 

Neither Dr. Goldfarb nor his new attorneys have ever seen a copy of the Volder

Notebook, despite diligent efforts over a period of years to obtain a copy or gain

access to a copy from Impra and Dr. Volder himself. Because there is no obligation

Case 2:03-cv-00597-MHM Document 835 Filed 07/29/08 Page 73 of 83
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

8

 These issues have been addressed previously. Nevertheless, the Court will discuss

them again in the context of Plaintiffs’ alleged failure to produce material information from

the Goldfarb v. Impra litigation as ordered by the PTO. 

- 74 -

to disclose what you do not know or have, there is no evidence that Dr. Goldfarb and

his attorneys intentionally withheld any information concerning the Volder Notebook

from the PTO.

3. BALANCE

263. Gore has not established that the claims about Dr. Volder’s alleged inventorship and

the Volder Notebook are material to the prosecution of the ‘135 patent.

264. There is no evidence that Dr. Goldfarb, Impra, or their counsel intended to mislead

the PTO about the existence or content of the Volder notebook. 

265. Gore has not established the existence of inequitable conduct by clear and convincing

evidence.

F. ALLEGED FAILURE TO PRODUCE MATERIAL INFORMATION

FROM GOLDFARB V. IMPRA AS ORDERED BY THE PTO8

266. Gore asserts that Dr. Goldfarb and/or his attorneys committed inequitable conduct

with respect to information obtained in the Goldfarb v. Impra litigation by: (i) failing

to disclose to the PTO that the 1976 Baker Affidavit was not correct in light of Dr.

Baker’s 1978 deposition testimony; and (ii) failing to disclose to the PTO Dr.

Volder’s claims of inventorship, Mr. Detton’s repudiation of his 1976 affidavits, the

Baker and Harold Green deposition transcripts from the Goldfarb v. Impra litigation,

and the 1978 Vermeire letter. 

267. Section 2001.06(c) of the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (“MPEP”) as it

existed in April 1980 (DX3965), required disclosure of information from related

litigation. For example, the manual required disclosure of evidence of possible prior

public use or sales, questions of inventorship, prior art, allegations of “fraud” or

violations of the duty of disclosure.

Case 2:03-cv-00597-MHM Document 835 Filed 07/29/08 Page 74 of 83
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 75 -

1. DR. BAKER’S 1978 DEPOSITION TESTIMONY

a) MATERIALITY

268. Again, Dr. Baker’s 1978 deposition testimony in the Goldfarb v. Impra litigation was

disclosed to the PTO on at least three separate occasions, including the following: 

- As part of the Cooper Application in an attempt to show that Dr. Goldfarb was

not the inventor of the claimed subject matter;

- As part of Cooper’s Motion to Dissolve filed during the Interference; and 

- During the resumed ex parte prosecution of the Goldfarb Application

following the completion of the Interference in which Cooper’s Motion to

Dissolve was disclosed and expressly discussed with the examiner. 

269. Information that is disclosed to the PTO cannot be considered to be withheld. Scripps

Clinic, 927 F.2d at 1582. 

270. Accordingly, Gore has failed to demonstrate that Dr. Goldfarb and his attorneys

withheld any information, let alone material information, from the PTO regarding Dr.

Baker’s 1978 deposition testimony.

271. Again, the 1976 Baker Affidavit states that “[u]nder no conditions presently known

... would [Dr. Baker] use or recommend the use of a graft characterized by a wall

thickness of greater than approximately .75 mm ... .” 

272. At his 1978 deposition, Dr. Baker confirmed that this statement was true and correct

at the time he signed his 1976 affidavit, but that subsequent clinical experience

suggested that a wall thickness less that 0.75 mm might not be appropriate for all

indications. Such later acquired scientific knowledge is not relevant to a

determination of patentability, which is concerned with the scientific knowledge at

the time of the filing or invention date of the Goldfarb Application, some four years

earlier than Dr. Baker’s deposition testimony. 

273. Further, both the PTO and the Federal Circuit expressly determined that wall

thickness was not a patentable distinction with respect to the claimed subject matter

Case 2:03-cv-00597-MHM Document 835 Filed 07/29/08 Page 75 of 83
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 76 -

and that wall thicknesses in the 0.2 to 0.8 mm range were either known or obvious

from the prior art. 

274. Accordingly, because Dr. Baker’s 1978 deposition testimony does not contradict or

vary the statements made in the 1976 Baker Affidavit; Dr. Baker’s 1978 deposition

refers only to later developed scientific knowledge which is not relevant to the

determination of patentability; and the PTO and Federal Circuit determined that wall

thickness is not a patentable distinction, Dr. Baker’s 1978 deposition testimony is not

material to the prosecution of the ‘135 patent. 

b) INTENT

275. There is no evidence that Dr. Goldfarb or his attorneys intended to withhold the 1978

deposition testimony of Dr. Baker from the PTO. To the contrary, the evidence shows

that: (i) Mr. Cates first disclosed the existence of the Goldfarb v. Impra lawsuit to the

PTO and sought to make “the record of those proceedings ... available to the

Commissioner for consideration”; (ii) Mr. Bookstein again disclosed the Goldfarb v.

Impra litigation to the PTO and, knowing that the examiner already had read

numerous transcripts from the Cooper Application, disclosed the 1978 Baker

deposition and sought to make it available to the examiner should he wish to review

it; and (iii) Mr. Lawrence Green expressly disclosed Cooper’s Motion to Dissolve to

the PTO, which contained Dr. Baker’s testimony, and informed the PTO that it

needed to consider this motion. 

276. The evidence further shows that Dr. Goldfarb and his attorneys did not believe that

the 1978 deposition testimony of Dr. Baker was material to the patentability of the

Goldfarb Application. Specifically: (i) Mr. Cates wrote a letter to his Australian

counterpart noting the “lack of candor” and “evasive and nonspecific” answers

provided by Dr. Baker; (ii) Mr. Bookstein informed the PTO that he did not

understand the Baker deposition testimony to repudiate or contradict the 1976 Baker

Affidavit in any material respect; and (iii) the PTO and Federal Circuit had

Case 2:03-cv-00597-MHM Document 835 Filed 07/29/08 Page 76 of 83
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 77 -

determined that wall thickness was not a patentable distinction, and thus Mr.

Lawrence Green believed that “anything that related to wall thickness, in my view,

was no longer material.”

277. There can be no intent to mislead or deceive when information is disclosed or the

PTO or where a good faith belief as to lack of materiality is established. Speciality

Composites, 845 F.2d at 982. Accordingly, because Dr. Goldfarb and his attorneys

expressly disclosed the Goldfarb v. Impra litigation and the 1978 Baker deposition

testimony to the PTO; and Plaintiffs have presented substantial evidence

demonstrating that Dr. Goldfarb and his attorneys had a good faith belief that the 1978

Baker deposition was not material to the prosecution of Goldfarb Application, Gore

has failed to demonstrate an intent to mislead or deceive the PTO by clear and

convincing evidence. 

c) BALANCE

278. Gore has failed to establish the existence of inequitable conduct by clear and

convincing evidence. This is true for the following reasons: (1) the 1978 deposition

testimony of Dr. Baker was disclosed to the PTO at various times; (2) the PTO found

wall thickness not material to the prosecution of the ‘135 patent; and (3) no intent to

mislead the PTO has been demonstrated.

279. Without clear and convincing evidence of inequitable conduct, there was no

compelling need for Mr. Lawrence Green to cure any inequitable conduct by

expressly disclosing the 1978 Baker deposition testimony and any related alleged

inequitable conduct to the PTO during the resumed ex parte prosecution following the

conclusion of the Interference.

/////

Case 2:03-cv-00597-MHM Document 835 Filed 07/29/08 Page 77 of 83
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 78 -

2. DR. VOLDER’S CLAIMS OF INVENTORSHIP, MR. DETTON’S

REPUDIATION OF HIS 1976 AFFIDAVITS, THE BAKER AND

HAROLD GREEN DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPTS, AND THE

1978 VERMEIRE LETTER 

a) MATERIALITY

280. As noted previously, the unsubstantiated allegations of Dr. Volder’s claim of

inventorship was not material to the prosecution of the ‘135 patent. There is no

evidence that Dr. Goldfarb was ever “elected” as the inventor of the ‘135 patent. The

sole evidence regarding the so-called election was the hearsay testimony of Dr. Baker

(a 20 percent shareholder in Impra) at a time when Impra was seeking to “torpedo”

the Goldfarb Application, and the hearsay testimony of Mr. Detton, who has admitted

to committing perjury. This testimony, which is both hearsay and lacks foundation,

is contradicted by the testimony of those persons who actually attended the September

9, 1974 meeting, who testified that it was unanimously agreed that Dr. Goldfarb was

the inventor based on the scientific merits of his research. The hearsay allegations

made during the Goldfarb v. Impra litigation are thus immaterial to the prosecution

of the ‘135 patent.

281. Mr. Detton’s alleged repudiation of his 1976 Affidavits were not withheld and were

not material to the prosecution of the ‘135 patent. Further, Mr. Detton’s repudiation

of his 1976 Affidavits was disclosed to the PTO in the 1980 Detton Affidavit. In

contrast to the allegations by Impra in the Goldfarb v. Impra litigation, the 1980

Detton Affidavit provided Mr. Detton’s own sworn description of the scope of his

alleged repudiation. 

282. As stated above, the 1978 deposition testimony of Dr. Baker and Mr. Harold Green

from the Goldfarb v. Impra litigation was disclosed to the PTO on at least three

separate occasions. This deposition testimony set forth all of the allegations made by

Impra in the Goldfarb v. Impra litigation regarding Dr. Volder’s inventorship, the

Case 2:03-cv-00597-MHM Document 835 Filed 07/29/08 Page 78 of 83
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 79 -

so-called “election” of Dr. Goldfarb as inventor, and the alleged repudiation of the

1976 Detton affidavits. 

283. Information that is disclosed to the PTO cannot be considered to be withheld. Scripps

Clinic, 927 F.2d at 1582. Accordingly, Gore has failed to demonstrate that Dr.

Goldfarb and his attorneys withheld any information from Dr. Baker’s and Mr. Harold

Green’s 1978 deposition testimony from the PTO.

284. The Vermiere letter did not provide details or evidence to support the allegations it

contained. Mr. Harold Green testified that this letter, and other disclosures provided

by Impra in connection with the Goldfarb v. Impra litigation, were part of an effort

by Impra to “torpedo” the Goldfarb Application in order to avoid potential litigation

in the future. Following receipt of Mr. Vermiere’s February 21, 1978 letter, Mr.

Swenson wrote to Mr. Vermiere on March 10, 1978, requesting facts to support the

allegations contained in the letter and asked for a copy of the Volder Notebook. No

facts were provided, nor was the Volder Notebook disclosed. 

285. The Baker and Green deposition testimony and the allegations in Mr. Vermeire’s

1978 letter can be considered cumulative, and therefore less material than the

information already before the PTO. 

286. There is no obligation to disclose immaterial or cumulative information to the PTO.

Elk Corp., 168 F.3d at 31.

287. Gore has failed to demonstrate that Dr. Goldfarb or his attorneys withheld material

information from the PTO by clear and convincing evidence because the allegations

from the Goldfarb v. Impra litigation regarding Dr. Volder’s claims of inventorship,

Mr. Detton’s alleged repudiation of his 1976 Affidavits, the Baker and Harold Green

deposition transcripts, and the 1978 Vermeire Letter, were either immaterial or

cumulative of evidence already before the PTO.

b) INTENT

288. As noted previously, there is insufficient evidence to support a finding that Dr.

Case 2:03-cv-00597-MHM Document 835 Filed 07/29/08 Page 79 of 83
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 80 -

Goldfarb and his attorneys intended to mislead or deceive the PTO with respect to Dr.

Volder’s alleged inventorship, or Mr. Detton’s alleged repudiation of his 1976

affidavits. In fact, Dr. Goldfarb and his attorneys also had a good faith belief that the

allegations regarding the so-called “election” of Dr. Goldfarb as inventor were false.

In addition, there is insufficient evidence to support finding that Dr. Goldfarb and his

attorneys intended to withhold the Baker and Harold Green deposition transcripts

from the Goldfarb v. Impra litigation or the 1978 Vermeire letter. 

289. Gore has failed to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that Dr. Goldfarb

and his attorneys intended to mislead or deceive the PTO with respect to this same

information from the Goldfarb v. Impra litigation.

c) BALANCE

290. Because the 1978 deposition testimony of Dr. Baker and Mr. Harold Green was

disclosed to the PTO, the allegations made by Impra concerning Dr. Volder’s

inventorship and Mr. Detton’s repudiation of his 1976 Affidavits is not material to the

prosecution of the ‘135 patent, and no intent to mislead the PTO has been

demonstrated, Gore has failed to establish the existence of inequitable as to the

Goldfarb v. Impra litigation evidence by conduct by clear and convincing evidence.

G. ALLEGED FAILURE TO ADVISE THE PATENT OFFICE OF THE

EXISTENCE OF THE GORE SHIPPING LOG

291. The Gore shipping logs were disclosed to the PTO during the Interference as part of

the Interference record.

292. Although these shipping logs indicate that Gore may have shipped “thin wall” grafts

to Dr. Volder prior to Dr. Goldfarb’s invention date, there is no evidence that Dr.

Volder actually used any such “thin wall” grafts in his medical research prior to such

use by Dr. Goldfarb. 

1. MATERIALITY 

293. The PTO expressly determined that wall thickness was not a patentable distinction

Case 2:03-cv-00597-MHM Document 835 Filed 07/29/08 Page 80 of 83
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 81 -

with respect to the claimed subject matter and that wall thicknesses in the 0.2 to 0.8

mm range were either known or obvious from the prior art. The Gore shipping logs

indicating that ePTFE grafts with a wall thicknesses of less than 1.0 mm were shipped

to Dr. Volder are thus not material to the prosecution of the ‘135 patent. 

294. There is no evidence that Dr. Volder actually used any ePTFE grafts received from

Gore with a wall thickness of less than 1.0 mm in any medical research prior to Dr.

Goldfarb’s work. To the contrary, the Volder A-V Shunts Article (PX115JJ) only

reports on the use of grafts with a wall thickness of 1.2 mm and Dr. Volder, who was

represented by his own attorney, has never asserted otherwise or sought to repudiate

his 1976 Affidavit on this basis. The Gore shipping logs indicating that ePTFE grafts

with a wall thicknesses of less than 1.0 mm were shipped to Dr. Volder are thus not

material to the patentability of the ‘135 patent for this additional reason. 

295. Furthermore, Gore was in possession of the shipping logs during the prosecution of

the Cooper Application, yet never disclosed them to the PTO in the Cooper

Application. Indeed, despite having possession of the Gore shipping logs, Gore told

the PTO that it had investigated whether Dr. Volder had a claim of inventorship and

had determined that he did not. Thus, Gore must not have believed that the shipping

logs were material to the patentability of the claimed invention. 

2. INTENT

296. There is no evidence that Dr. Goldfarb or his attorneys had any possession or

knowledge of Gore’s shipping logs at the time the 1976 Volder Affidavit was

submitted. Indeed, there is no evidence that they had the shipping logs until the

Interference. 

297. Further, once they had the shipping logs, there is no evidence that Dr. Goldfarb or his

attorneys considered Gore’s shipping logs to contradict the 1976 Volder Affidavit or

otherwise be material to the prosecution of the ‘135 patent. To the contrary, Mr.

Lawrence Green testified that he did not disclose the shipping logs to the ex parte

Case 2:03-cv-00597-MHM Document 835 Filed 07/29/08 Page 81 of 83
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

9

 As an aside, it should be noted that the Jury heard a substantial amount of evidence

that related to inequitable conduct. The Court recognizes that the Jury was asked to consider

the validity of claims 20 through 27 of the ‘135 patent and the inequitable conduct evidence

pertains to claims one through ten. Nevertheless, much of the inequitable conduct evidence

was allowed to be presented to the Jury as it relates to the substantive claims. Despite

hearing much of Gore’s inequitable conduct evidence, the Jury returned a verdict for

Plaintiffs on every count and every claim. 

- 82 -

patent examiner because they only concerned wall thickness, which was not a

patentable distinction, and thus were not material. 

298. There can be no intent to mislead or deceive when there is a failure to disclose

unknown information or where a good faith belief as to lack of materiality is

established. Speciality Composites, 845 F.2d at 982. Gore has not established that

Dr. Goldfarb and his attorneys intentionally withheld any information from the 1976

Volder Affidavits or material information concerning the Gore shipping logs.

3. BALANCE

299. Because the 1976 Volder Affidavit does not contain any misrepresentation, the Gore

shipping logs are not material to the prosecution of the ‘135 patent, and no intent to

mislead the PTO has been demonstrated, Gore has not establish the existence of

inequitable conduct by clear and convincing evidence.

IV. CONCLUSION

Gore has not demonstrated the requisite intent or bad faith to establish the affirmative

defense of inequitable conduct.9

 Gore has failed to present sufficient evidence to establish

that Plaintiffs have not fulfilled their duty of candor, good faith, and honesty to the PTO.

Nor has Gore established by clear and convincing evidence that Plaintiffs participated in

affirmative misrepresentations of a material fact, failed to disclose material information, or

submitted false material information, and an intent to deceive. 

Specifically, Gore has failed to present sufficient evidence to establish inequitable

conduct by clear and convincing evidence as to Plaintiffs’ failure to advise the PTO of Dr.

Case 2:03-cv-00597-MHM Document 835 Filed 07/29/08 Page 82 of 83
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 83 -

Volder’s connections with Impra in his 1976 affidavit. Gore has failed to present sufficient

evidence to establish inequitable conduct by clear and convincing evidence as to Plaintiffs’

alleged failure to advise the PTO that Dr. Baker withdrew and repudiated Paragraph 6 of his

1976 Affidavit. Gore has failed to present sufficient evidence to establish inequitable

conduct by clear and convincing evidence as to Plaintiffs’ alleged inappropriate filing and

reliance on Mr. Detton’s two 1976 Affidavits. Gore has failed to present sufficient evidence

to establish inequitable conduct by clear and convincing evidence as to Plaintiffs’ alleged

inappropriate reliance on the PTO’s error in connection with wall thickness of the prior art

Matsumoto Publication. Gore has failed to present sufficient evidence to establish

inequitable conduct by clear and convincing evidence as to Plaintiffs’ alleged failure to

provide to the PTO Dr. Volder’s work, notebook, and possible role as an inventor or coinventor. Gore has failed to present sufficient evidence to establish inequitable conduct by

clear and convincing evidence as to Plaintiffs’ alleged failure to produce material information

from Goldfarb v. Impra as ordered by the PTO. Gore has failed to present sufficient

evidence to establish inequitable conduct by clear and convincing evidence as to Plaintiffs’

alleged failure to advise the PTO of the existence of the Gore Shipping Log. 

Accordingly, the Court finds that Gore has not proven by clear and convincing

evidence that Dr. Goldfarb and/or his attorneys committed inequitable conduct during the

prosecution of U.S. Patent No. 6,436,135.

JUDGMENT ENTERED ACCORDINGLY as to this Order and the Jury’s Verdict,

which was entered December 11, 2007 (Doc. 771). 

DATED this 29th day of July, 2008.

Case 2:03-cv-00597-MHM Document 835 Filed 07/29/08 Page 83 of 83