Federal Judiciary

Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment on Defendant's Inequitable Conduct Claims Granted

By Michael Smith

Grantley Patent Holdings, Ltd. v. Clear Channel Communications, Inc., 540 F.Supp.2d 724 (E.D.Tex. Mar 31, 2008) (NO. CIV.A. 9:06CV259)
Judge: Ron Clark
Holding: Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment on Inequitable Conduct GRANTED
Plaintiff Grantley Patent Holdings, Ltd. moved for summary judgment on the inequitable conduct claims advanced by Defendants, arguing that defendants had produced no evidence of materiality or intent to deceive. Judge Clark noted that inequitable conduct must be proven by clear and convincing evidence, and that the defendant had provided "scant" evidence of the failure to disclose material information or of submission of false information, and "virtually no" evidence of intent to deceive (he later states that the evidence is "most accurately characterized as paltry.") "Under the governing evidentiary standard," the court held, "this exiguous" (ed note - no, I don't know what this word means either) "record demonstrates no genuine issue of material fact regarding the inequitable conduct claims [therefore] Grantley's motion for summary judgment is granted."
Judge Clark's opinion in this case provided a useful summary of the standards for summary judgment as well as for claims of inequitable conduct.  In the end, he concluded that while the evidence might get past SJ if the standard were preponderance of the evidence, as it is, with the evidence before him he'd have no choice but to grant a motion for judgment as a matter of law if the jury came back with a finding of inequitable conduct - accordingly he granted the motion.

Full post as published by Eastern District of Texas Federal Court Practice on May 19, 2008 (boomark / email).