Intellectual Property Law

Patent for Controlling Gas Flows Invalidated for Inequitable Conduct Where Witness Could Not Explain the Failure to Disclose References to the PTO

The One Sentence Summary: The panel affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded after considering inequitable conduct, indefiniteness, and claim construction challenges.

Federal Circuit Holdings:

• The panel affirmed the district court's finding of inequitable conduct and unenforceability of the '115 patent for failing to disclose restricted flow orifices that were similar to the capillaries claimed in a patent to control discharge of high pressure fluids and gases. The RFO prior art was highly material because it was inconsistent with statements made in the prosecution of the patent. There was no credible explanation of the reason why the reference was not submitted to the PTO (general statements of not having an intent to deceive were entitled to no weight, and the witness could not recall specifically why the reference had not been submitted). Thus, the court properly inferred intent to deceive the PTO.
• An inequitable conduct finding as to a second patent (the '609 patent) was reversed because there was no basis for a finding of high materiality. The prosecution history statements relied upon in establishing materiality for the '115 patent did not infect the prosecution of the '609 patent.
• The panel reversed the district court's conclusion that the '895 patent was unenforceable due to 35 U.S.C. section 112 indefiniteness in the term "port body." The port body was sufficiently described in the specification and figures, it was not exclusively defined by its functionality, and extrinsic evidence of an expert's inability to identify the port body did not affect the legal interpretation of the term.
• The district's court's claim construction of the term "flow restrictor" was incorrect in requiring "severe" flow restriction when that was simply a preferred embodiment. However, the panel rejected the broader construction of any flow restriction where the specification made clear that the very character of the invention as described in the specification required that the flow restriction be sufficient to prevent hazardous flows of gases.
• The district court properly relied on a dictionary definition for construction of the term "capillary" that was not contradicted by the specification.
• Although "uniformity" of capillaries was often mentioned in the specification, it was simply a preferred embodiment, and it was added as a limitation by dependent claims to earlier independent claims, and thus should not be part of the claim construction.

Full post as published by IP Law Observer on October 08, 2008 (boomark / email).