Inequitable Conduct Based on Contradictory Statements to the EPO (in a non-family member application)

Therasense, Inc. (Abbott) v. Becton, Dickinson and Co. (Fed. Cir. 2010) (Case No. 2009-1511)

This detailed 67–page opinion includes several important issues. This post focuses on inequtiable conduct. The Federal Circuit recently released a parallel decision involving the same parties (but different patent) here

After a bench trial, Northern District of California Judge Alsup held Abbott’s patent unenforceable due to inequitable conduct during prosecution. (Patent No. 5,820,551). On appeal, the Federal Circuit has affirmed that decision — holding that the prosecuting attorneys had violated their duty of disclosure by failing to dislcose statements made by Abbott to the European Patent Office during a proceeding involving the European counterpart of another patent family (the ‘382 patent’ family) also owned by Abbott.  Although the court affirmed the finding of inequitable conduct, it offered the fig leaf that such a finding should be “rare.”  (Note: Therasense originally filed both patent applications and also made the statements to the EPO. That company was subsequently purchased by Abbott.)

Patent applicants (and their attorneys/agents) are required to disclose to the US Patent Office any information that a reasonable examiner would likely consider important in deciding whether to issue a patent.  Failing to submit the required information can lead to a finding of inequitable conduct if the information was both (1) material to patentability and (2) witheld because of an intent to deceive the Patent Office.  Inequitable conduct usually results in a patent being rendered totally unenforceable. “The penalty for inequitable conduct is severe, as an entire patent is rendered unenforceable.”

During prosecution, the examiner rejected the application based on Abbott’s own ‘382 patent.  In response, Abbott’s Director of Research submitted an affidavit attesting that the one skilled in the art would not consider the ‘382 patent to teach the invention as claimed in the ‘551 patent. [The claimed invention was a glucose-memter electrode strip without an intervening membrane layer — with the absense of the membrane being the distinguishing feature.]  Based on that representation, the Examiner allowed the patent to issue. Meanwhile, in Europe, Abbott made the statement that the stated distinction was only a “safety measure” and was “preferred” but not necessary. [“It is submitted that this disclosure is unequivocally clear. The protective membrane is optional, however, it is preferred when used on live blood.”]

Based on these facts, the Federal Circuit found the statements material:

To deprive an examiner of the EPO statements—statements directly contrary to Abbott’s representations to the PTO—on the grounds that they were not material would be to eviscerate the duty of disclosure. Moreover, if this could be regarded as a close case, which it is not, we have repeatedly emphasized that the duty of disclosure requires that the material in question be submitted to the examiner rather than withheld by the applicant.

Lawyer Argument Regarding Prior Art: In several cases, the Federal Circuit has held that contradictory representations made during the prosecution of other patent applications should not be considered material to patentability if made in the form of lawyer-argument. See Innogenetics. Here, the appellate panel distinguished those cases because they all involved US applications rather than statements made to different institutions.

However, all of the cases Abbott cites involve patentees who simply made representations to the PTO about prior art in order to secure the allowance of their patents.  None of these cases involved a situation in which contradictory arguments made in another forum were withheld from the PTO. They do not speak to the applicant’s obligation to advise the PTO of contrary representations made in another forum. Before the EPO, Abbott made statements that contradicted the representations Abbott made to the PTO regarding the ’382 patent. An applicant’s earlier statements about prior art, especially one’s own prior art, are material to the PTO when those statements directly contradict the applicant’s position regarding that prior art in the PTO. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.56(b)(2). In any event, the representations to the PTO were not merely lawyer argument; they were factual assertions as to the views of those skilled in the art, provided in affidavit form.

Intent: The Federal Circuit agreed that the lower court’s finding of subjective intent was “amply supported.”

Holding:

Because the district court’s findings that the EPO submissions were highly material to the prosecution of the ’551 patent and that Pope and Dr. Sanghera intended to deceive the PTO by withholding those submissions were not clearly erroneous, the district court did not abuse its discretion in holding the ’551 patent unenforceable due to inequitable conduct.

Judge Linn filed a dissenting opinion: Judge Linn argues (1) that there is an explanation for the statements that does not lead to them being directly contradictory and (2) that the individuals involved “produced a good faith explanation as to why they withheld the EPO submissions.”  Such a good faith explanation should defeat charges of inequitable conduct if it is plausible.

The question, thus, is not whether it is plausible that the information is immaterial—a question asked under the objective materiality prong—but rather, whether it is plausible that the individuals subjectively believed that the reference was immaterial at the time they withheld it—a question presented under the subjective intent prong.