Specifics Inequitable conduct occurs when a patent applicant misrepresents or omits material information with the specific intent to deceive the United States Patent and Trademark Office. The elements are materiality and deceptive intent. Deceptive intent may be inferred from indirect or circumstantial evidence but not from materiality. This misrepresentation or omission can include: (a) failure to submit material prior art known by the applicant; (b) failure to explain references in a foreign language or submit pre-existing full or partial translations of the references; (c) misstatements of fact, including misstatements in affidavits concerning patentability; and (d) mis-description of inventorship (authorship). Information is material if "the PTO would not have allowed a claim had it been aware of the undisclosed prior art" or if "affirmative egregious misconduct" has happened. See Therasense, Inc. v. Becton.Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson and Co., 649 F.3d 1276 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (en banc). In response to Therasense, the USPTO rewrote its definition of materiality to say that information is material if (1) It establishes, by itself or in combination with other information, a prima facie case of unpatentability of a claim; or (2) It refutes, or is inconsistent with, a position the applicant takes in: (i) Opposing an argument of unpatentability relied on by the Office, or (ii) Asserting an argument of patentability   .
Specifics Inequitable conduct occurs when a patent applicant misrepresents or omits material information with the specific intent to deceive the United States Patent and Trademark Office. In other words, the elements of inequitable conduct are materiality and deceptive intent. Deceptive intent may be inferred from indirect or circumstantial evidence but not from materiality. Information is material if "the PTO would not have allowed a claim had it been aware of the undisclosed prior art" or if "affirmative egregious misconduct" has happened. See Therasense, Inc. v. Becton.Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson and Co., 649 F.3d 1276 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (en banc). In response to Therasense, the USPTO rewrote its definition of materiality to say that information is material if (1) It establishes, by itself or in combination with other information, a prima facie case of unpatentability of a claim; or (2) It refutes, or is inconsistent with, a position the applicant takes in: (i) Opposing an argument of unpatentability relied on by the Office, or (ii) Asserting an argument of patentability . The misrepresentation or omission can include: (a) failure to submit material prior art known by the applicant; (b) failure to explain references in a foreign language or submit pre-existing full or partial translations of the references; (c) misstatements of fact, including misstatements in affidavits concerning patentability; and (d) mis-description of inventorship (authorship) .
R
The elements
In other words, the elements of inequitable conduct
D
This misrepresentation or omission can include: (a) failure to submit material prior art known by the applicant; (b) failure to explain references in a foreign language or submit pre-existing full or partial translations of the references; (c) misstatements of fact, including misstatements in affidavits concerning patentability; and (d) mis-description of inventorship (authorship).
A
.
A
The misrepresentation or omission can include: (a) failure to submit material prior art known by the applicant; (b) failure to explain references in a foreign language or submit pre-existing full or partial translations of the references; (c) misstatements of fact, including misstatements in affidavits concerning patentability; and (d) mis-description of inventorship (authorship)