{"id":3282,"date":"2010-11-09T17:54:58","date_gmt":"2010-11-09T23:54:58","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/?p=3282"},"modified":"2010-11-09T17:54:58","modified_gmt":"2010-11-09T23:54:58","slug":"en-banc-oral-argument-in-therasense-inc-v-becton-dickinson-and-co","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/?p=3282","title":{"rendered":"En Banc Oral Argument in Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson and Co."},"content":{"rendered":"<p>The Federal Circuit sat <em>en banc<\/em> today to hear oral argument in <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">Therasense, Inc.\u00a0v. Becton, Dickinson and Co.<\/span>, 2008-1511,\u00a0a case concerning alleged\u00a0inequitable conduct during patent prosecution.\u00a0 The issues on appeal are available here: [<a href=\"http:\/\/www.cafc.uscourts.gov\/images\/stories\/opinions-orders\/08-1511o.pdf\">En Banc Order<\/a>].\u00a0 Namely,<\/p>\n<div><\/div>\n<p><span style=\"font-size: small;\"><\/p>\n<blockquote><p>1. Should the materiality-intent-balancing framework for inequitable conduct be modified or replaced? \u3000<\/p>\n<p>2. If so, how? In particular, should the standard be tied directly to fraud or unclean hands? <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">See Precision Instrument Mfg. Co. v. Auto. Maint. Mach. Co.<\/span>, 324 U.S. 806 (1945); <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co.<\/span>, 322 U.S. 238 (1944), <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">overruled on other grounds by Standard Oil Co. v. United States<\/span>, 429 U.S. 17 (1976); <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">Keystone Driller Co. v. Gen. Excavator Co.<\/span>, 290 U.S. 240 (1933). If so, what is the appropriate standard for fraud or unclean hands?<\/p>\n<p>3. What is the proper standard for materiality? What role should the United States Patent and Trademark Office\u2019s rules play in defining materiality? Should a finding of materiality require that but for the alleged misconduct, one or more claims would not have issued? \u3000<\/p>\n<p>4. Under what circumstances is it proper to infer intent from materiality? <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">See Kingsdown Med. Consultants, Ltd. v. Hollister Inc.<\/span>, 863 F.2d 867 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (en banc).<\/p>\n<p>5. Should the balancing inquiry (balancing materiality and intent) be abandoned?<\/p>\n<p>6. Whether the standards for materiality and intent in other federal agency contexts or at common law shed light on the appropriate standards to be applied in the patent context.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\u00a0<\/p>\n<p><\/span><\/p>\n<p>You can listen to the<em> en banc<\/em> oral argument here: [<a href=\"http:\/\/oralarguments.cafc.uscourts.gov\/Audiomp3\/2008-1511_1192010.MP3\">Listen<\/a>].<\/p>\n<p>The case was previously argued before a three judge panel (Judges Linn, Dyk, and Friedman).\u00a0 The recording of that oral argument is available here: [<a href=\"http:\/\/oralarguments.cafc.uscourts.gov\/Audiomp3\/2008-1511.mp3\">Listen<\/a>].\u00a0 That panel&#8217;s opinion which was later\u00a0vacated for purposes of <em>en banc<\/em> review is available here: [<a href=\"http:\/\/scholar.google.com\/scholar_case?case=11760369026517174524&amp;q=therasense+v.+becton+dickinson&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=4002\">Read<\/a>].<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The Federal Circuit sat en banc today to hear oral argument in Therasense, Inc.\u00a0v. Becton, Dickinson and Co., 2008-1511,\u00a0a case concerning alleged\u00a0inequitable conduct during patent prosecution.\u00a0 The issues on appeal are available here: [En Banc Order].\u00a0 Namely, 1. Should the materiality-intent-balancing framework for inequitable conduct be modified or replaced? \u3000 2. If so, how? In [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3282"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=3282"}],"version-history":[{"count":16,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3282\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3298,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3282\/revisions\/3298"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=3282"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=3282"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=3282"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}