Opinion ID: 728969
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: the invention submission

Text: 3 During certain automobile repairs it is necessary for the mechanic to remove the exhaust manifold in order to reach the site of the repair. However, engine heat often warps the manifold so that it is not easily removed or reinstalled. Mr. Hebert's tool, called an exhaust manifold spreader, facilitates removal and reinstallation of the warped exhaust manifold. By reusing instead of discarding the warped manifold, the cost and inconvenience of obtaining one or more replacement manifolds (depending on the type of engine) is saved. 4 On March 6, 1986 Mr. Hebert filed the patent application that led to the '940 patent. In early September 1987 he responded to a Lisle Corporation advertisement in a magazine directed to auto mechanics, wherein Lisle sought the submission of novel tool designs. The advertisement stated that tools submitted to Lisle's Invention Disclosure Program may be produced and sold by Lisle Corporation under an attractive Royalty Agreement that will bring you an income for years to come and that submission to Lisle's program was A PROVEN SUCCESS FORMULA! 5 Lisle sent Mr. Hebert an Invention Disclosure Agreement form that provided that any submission is on a non-confidential basis and does not obligate LISLE in any way. Mr. Hebert through his lawyer returned the signed Agreement on September 14, 1987, with a patent drawing and other parts of his pending patent application and a model of his tool. On September 23, 1987 Lisle rejected the submission, stating that: 6 [O]ver the years twelve (12) other inventors had sent in a very similar tool idea.... Several years ago we made prototypes and gave them to area garages to see if these tools would work very well. We must not have received a very positive response because Management has not been interested in pursuing this idea. 7 On May 17, 1989 Lisle's Manager of Development and Engineering wrote again to Mr. Hebert: 8 Over the last few years we have had correspondence with you and many other inventors concerning a tool for spreading exhaust manifolds. Since we are getting ready to manufacture a tool for this application, we felt that it was important to contact all of the inventors who have submitted invention disclosures to us and let them know our final decision on this product. In general, all the ideas which we have received have been either a jack using a single thread and nut or a jack using two threads, one left hand and one right hand. Since we have received many invention disclosures indicating a need for this tool we have finally decided to manufacture a tool of the second type mentioned above. 9 In the letter Mr. Hebert was told that he would not receive any compensation because he was not the first inventor in either of the above categories. 10 Mr. Hebert's lawyer responded on May 24, 1989, reminding Lisle of Mr. Hebert's pending patent application and warning about unauthorized use of his invention. Lisle's lawyer answered on June 7, 1989, pointing out that Mr. Hebert's disclosure was not in confidence and stating that he was neither the first to submit the idea to the Lisle Corporation nor do we have any record of his patent rights in the invention. The letter included the following: 11 I also note that in 1987 you were put on notice of significant prior art relating to Mr. Hebert's invention. You were specifically advised of twelve other inventors who developed tools which appear to constitute prior art. You were also advised that Lisle Corporation made prototypes for such products and distributed them within the United States. I must only presume that you provided all of this prior art information to the U.S. Patent Office. 12 These letters from Lisle were a principal basis of Lisle's charge of inequitable conduct before the PTO. Lisle's expert witness testified that Mr. Hebert was required to provide the patent examiner with this prior art information, and that failure to do so rendered the patent unenforceable for inequitable conduct. 13 The jury found the patent valid, but unenforceable for inequitable conduct. The district court denied duly made post-trial motions, and this appeal followed.