The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently affirmed a lower court’s ruling that a company’s patent was unenforceable because of the company president’s misconduct toward the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office even though he wasn’t the inventor or patent filer.

The April 27 majority panel ruling in Avid Identification Systems Inc. v. Crystal Import Corp. (pdf) affirmed an Eastern District of Texas ruling. The district court found that Avid’s patent for a device to read implanted animal identification chips was valid and infringed, but unenforceable because of Avid president Hannis Stoddard’s inequitable conduct toward the PTO. Specifically, it found that Stoddard’s failure to inform the PTO of his trade show demo of the technology more than a year before the application filing date rendered the patent unenforceable.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]