The recent Federal Circuit decision McKesson Info. Solutions, Inc. v. Bridge Med., Inc., No. 2006-1517 (Fed. Cir. May 18, 2007) has many patent prosecutors scrambling to file information disclosures after the court found inequitable conduct based on the all-too-common oversight of not cross-citing prior art from similar, co-pending applications and the even more common oversight of not cross-citing allowances and rejections from such applications.

Inequitable conduct occurs when a patent applicant, with the intent to mislead or deceive the examiner, fails to disclose material information or submits materially false information to the Patent and Trademark Office during the prosecution of the patent application. A finding of inequitable conduct will render a 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This content has been archived.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]