Aipla model Patent Jury Instructions

10. Unenforceability (Inequitable Conduct)

Practice Note: Inequitable conduct is an equitable issue that is decided by the Court, in its discretion. There is no right to a jury trial on inequitable conduct. Although the issue is sometimes submitted to the finder of fact for an Advisory Verdict, the issue must be decided by the Court, either with or without an Advisory Verdict. If the Court elects to request an Advisory Verdict, the Court should consider whether to charge the jury on the entire issue, or solely on the materiality and/or intent to deceive issues. The verdict form should include separate questions on each of the issues on which the jury is charged, i.e., materiality, intent, and/or balancing the equities. The Court should consider carefully whether to request an Advisory Verdict. The issues are complex and potentially confusing. A clear-and-convincing-evidence standard applies to the inequitable conduct defense while the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard applies to the issue of whether the Patent and Trademark Office would have issued the patent “but for” the failure to disclose. In addition, the USPTO employs a “broadest reasonable interpretation” standard for claim construction, which may conflict with the Court’s construction of the claims. Submitting the issue for an Advisory Verdict increases the complexity of the Instructions, has the potential to confuse the jury, and may bias the jury’s consideration of other issues that it is required to decide. Federal Circuit authority establishes an objective threshold issue of whether the reference or conduct would have been a basis to deny patentability. If this threshold issue is not satisfied, submitting the issue for an Advisory Verdict is not appropriate. If an Advisory Verdict is requested, care must be taken to ensure that the issue(s) is properly raised and that there is sufficient evidence to support the defense.

10.0 Inequitable Conduct–Generally

[The Defendant] contends that [the Plaintiff] may not enforce the [abbreviated patent number] patent against [the Defendant] because individuals substantively involved in the prosecution of the [abbreviated patent number] patent engaged in inequitable conduct before the PTO during prosecution of that patent.

Applicants for a patent have a duty to prosecute patent applications in the PTO with candor and good faith. This duty of candor and good faith extends to all inventors named on a patent application, all patent attorneys and patent agents involved in preparing and prosecuting the application, and every other individual involved in a substantial way with the prosecution of the patent application. An intentional failure to meet this duty of candor and good faith is referred to as “inequitable conduct.”

[In this case, [the Defendant] asserts that [DESCRIBE BRIEFLY EACH BASIS FOR [THE DEFENDANT]’S UNENFORCEABILITY DEFENSE].]

[The Defendant] must prove inequitable conduct by clear and convincing evidence. To determine whether the [abbreviated patent number] patent was obtained through inequitable conduct, you must determine:

1. 
   whether an individual or individuals having this duty of candor and good faith [engaged in affirmative acts of egregious misconduct or] withheld or misrepresented information, or submitted false information, that was material to the examination of the patent application; and
   
2. 
   that this individual or individuals acted with the specific intent to deceive or mislead the PTO.
   

Therasense, Inc. v. Becton Dickinson & Co., 649 F.3d 1276 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (en banc); Avid Identification Sys., Inc. v. Crystal Import Corp., 603 F.3d 967, 973-74 (Fed. Cir. 2010); eSpeed, Inc. v. BrokerTec USA, L.L.C., 480 F.3d 1129, 1135 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Digital Control, Inc. v. Charles Mach. Works, 437 F.3d 1309, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2006); Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Endo Pharms., Inc., 438 F.3d 1123, 1128 (Fed. Cir. 2006); Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Rhone-Poulenc Rorer, Inc., 326 F.3d 1226, 1233 (Fed. Cir. 2003).

10.1 Materiality

10.1.1 Materiality (Non-disclosure Cases Only)

[The Defendant] contends that _____________________ was information [[known to] [misrepresented by]] an individual having the duty of good faith and candor to the USPTO, and that such information was [[withheld from] [misrepresented to]] the USPTO during the prosecution of the [abbreviated patent number] patent. If you find that an individual having this duty of good faith and candor [[withheld] [misrepresented]] information when applying for the [abbreviated patent number] patent, you must also determine whether that information was material information.

Information is material if “but for” the individual’s [[failure to disclose] [misrepresentation of]] the information during the prosecution, the USPTO would not have allowed one or more claims of the [abbreviated patent number] patent. In other words, information is material if it is more likely than not that the USPTO would not have allowed one or more claims of the [abbreviated patent number] patent if it had been aware of the [[withheld] [true]] information. To decide whether the USPTO would not have allowed one or more claims if it had been aware of the [[withheld] [true]] information, you should use the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim or claims under consideration and apply the “more likely than not” standard, as the USPTO would have done.

If you decide that the USPTO would not have allowed one or more claims applying this standard, then the individual’s [[failure to disclose] [misrepresentation of]] the information during the prosecution is material, whether or not you also find the claims invalid under the standards for finding claims invalid in this lawsuit. However, this does not change [the Defendant]’s overall burden to prove that it is highly probable that the individual committed inequitable conduct.

Therasense, Inc. v. Becton Dickinson & Co., 649 F.3d 1276 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (en banc).

10.1.2 Materiality (Affirmative Egregious Misconduct Cases Only)

In this case, [the Defendant] alleges that [individual(s) accused of inequitable conduct] engaged in affirmative acts of egregious misconduct during the prosecution of the [abbreviated patent number] patent. Specifically, [the Defendant] alleges [summarize alleged affirmative acts of egregious misconduct]. If you are left with a clear conviction that [accused individual(s)] engaged in the conduct as alleged by [the Defendant], and that the conduct rises to the level of affirmative egregious misconduct, then you must find that the misconduct was material.

To assist you in your deliberation, examples of affirmative acts of egregious conduct would be perjury, including filing an unmistakably false affidavit in the USPTO during prosecution of the [abbreviated patent number] patent, or fabricating evidence presented to the USPTO during prosecution of the [abbreviated patent number] patent. Affirmative acts of egregious conduct may also include deliberately planned and executed schemes to defraud the USPTO.

On the other hand, examples of things that do not rise to the level of affirmative acts of egregious conduct would be mere nondisclosure of prior art references to the USPTO, failure to submit references that are duplicative or cumulative of references of which the USPTO was already aware, or failure to mention prior art references in an affidavit during prosecution of the [abbreviated patent number] patent.

Therasense, Inc. v. Becton Dickinson & Co., 649 F.3d 1276 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (en banc).

10.2 Intent to Deceive or Mislead

If you find by clear and convincing evidence that material information was withheld from or misrepresented to the USPTO, or that [accused individual(s)] engaged in affirmative egregious misconduct, you must next determine whether this was done with a specific intent to deceive or mislead the USPTO. You may find intent to deceive or mislead the USPTO from direct evidence. You may also infer intent to deceive or mislead the USPTO from the facts and surrounding circumstances. Whether based on direct or circumstantial evidence, the evidence must leave you with a clear conviction that material information was withheld from or misrepresented to the USPTO in order for you to find an intent to deceive or mislead.

For example, when a patentee has knowingly misrepresented a material fact or submitted false material information, and when the natural consequence of those intentional acts would be to deceive or mislead the USPTO, an inference that [the accused individual(s)] intended to deceive the USPTO may be appropriate.

When the individual having a duty of good faith and candor has deliberately withheld or misrepresented known material information from the USPTO, you may find that he or she acted with intent to deceive or mislead the USPTO if and only if that is the single most reasonable inference to be drawn from the evidence. If there are multiple reasonable inferences that may be drawn, you cannot find an intent to deceive or mislead. You may not infer that the individual acted with intent to deceive or mislead based solely on the fact or facts that the information withheld was material, or even highly material, or that the individual has not provided a good faith explanation for the withholding. Nor may you infer intent solely on the basis of gross negligence or negligence in withholding material information.

For example, it is not enough that the individual knew of a reference, should have known of its materiality, and did not submit it to the USPTO. Instead, you need to determine whether or not the individual knew of the withheld or misrepresented information, knew the information was material, and made a deliberate and conscious decision to withhold or misrepresent the information. In determining whether there was an intent to deceive or mislead the USPTO, you should consider the totality of the circumstances, including the nature of the conduct and whether that conduct occurred in good faith.

Therasense, Inc. v. Becton Dickinson & Co., 649 F.3d 1276, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (en banc); Intellect Wireless, Inc. v. HTC Corp., 732 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2013); Larson Mfg. Co. of S.D. v. Aluminart Prods. Ltd., 559 F.3d 1317, 1340-41 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Star Scientific, Inc. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 537 F.3d 1357, 1366, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2008); eSpeed, Inc. v. BrokerTec USA, L.L.C., 480 F.3d 1129, 1137-38 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Endo Pharms. Inc., 438 F.3d 1123, 1133-34 (Fed. Cir. 2006); PerSeptive Biosystems, Inc. v. Pharmacia Biotech, Inc., 225 F.3d 1315, 1319-20 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Molins PLC v. Textron, Inc., 48 F.3d 1172, 1180-82 (Fed. Cir. 1995).