Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Federal Judiciary Blogs -> Eastern District of Texas Federal Court Practice

Federal Judiciary

: Eastern District of Texas Federal Court Practice

A Bridge Too Far: Following Jury Verdict of Infringement and Invalidity Defendant Failed to Show Inequitable Conduct by Clear and Convincing Evidence

By Michael C. Smith

Mettler-Toledo, Inc v. Fairbanks Scales Inc et al, 9:06cv00097) (E.D. Tex. 11/9/2010)

Judge Keith F. Giblin

Holding: No Inequitable Conduct Found

Lt. General Frederick "Boy" Browning: I've just been on to Monty. He's very proud and pleased.
Major General Urquhart: Pleased?
Lt. General Frederick "Boy" Browning: Of course. He thinks Market Garden was 90% successful.
Major General Urquhart: But what do you think?
Lt. General Frederick "Boy" Browning: Well, as you know, I always felt we tried to go a bridge too far.

This case was tried before a jury January 9, 2009 through January 29, 2009, resulting in a verdict in favor of Defendant B-Tek Scales, LLC on infringement of all three of the asserted patents, and and for the defendant on invalidity as to two of the three patents. 

Following the jury trial in this case, the defendant, inspired no doubt by Gen. Montgomery's campaign to take the bridges across the Rhine in Operation Market Garden (from which came the Cornelius Ryan book from which we derive the colloqial term A Bridge Too Far) launched Operation Inequitable Conduct Garden (at least that's what I think they called it), seeking a judicial finding that the patents that it didn't infringe and which were invalid anyway (two of the three) were also unenforceable due to inequitable conduct. 

Judge Giblin accordingly conducted a bench trial on the issue of inequitable conduct, after which he concluded that the defendants had failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence an intent to deceive sufficient for a finding of inequitable conduct. "While [defendant] need not point to a 'smoking gun' to prevail, because inequitable conduct may be inferred from circumstantial evidence," the Court wrote, "the inference must 'be the single most reasonable inference able to be drawn from the evidence.'"  In this case, Judge Giblin found the prosecuting attorney credible as a witness, and that the evidence presented was open to more than one interpretation."

From Docket Navigator

Artwork from Flames of War.

Full post as published by Eastern District of Texas Federal Court Practice on November 12, 2010 (boomark / email).