Federal Circuit Panel Unanimously Affirms Inequitable Conduct

In Apotex, Inc. v. UCB, Inc. (Fed. Cir. Aug. 15, 2014) (Reyna (auth), Wallach, Hughes) the panel affirmed the holding of the Southern District of Florida that the ‘556 patent was unenforceable due to inequitable conduct. ┬áHonestly, it appears to be a truly egregious case — involving experiments that were never run, false affidavits, and more.

The doctrine still has some fight left.

2 thoughts on “Federal Circuit Panel Unanimously Affirms Inequitable Conduct

  1. I’m curious about the level of pleading of i.c. at the district court level. As you say, this case was pretty egregious (a no-brainer, really bordering on fraud), but the facts that the CAFC mentions sound like things that only would have come out during discovery, and wouldn’t have been known at the time the defendant’s response was initially filed. At what stage was i.c. pled with enough specificity to pass muster?

    1. I don’t know n this case, but Exergen and the way discovery is limited to claims/defenses creates some difficulties for this defense. I understand some local rules give a defendant some leeway on discovery into IC, and then, if needed, the right to amend to add it.

Comments are closed.