Chapter 2000 Duty of Disclosure

2000 [Reserved] 2000.01 Introduction 2000 [Reserved] 2001 Duty of Disclosure, Candor, and Good Faith 2000.01 Introduction [R-08.2017] 2001.01 Who Has Duty To Disclose 2001.02 [Reserved] This Chapter deals with the duties owed toward the 2001.03 To Whom Duty of Disclosure Is U.S. Patent and Trademark Of®ce by each individual Owed who is associated with the preparation or prosecution 2001.04 Information Under 37 CFR 1.56(a) of the application. Each individual associated with 2001.05 Under 37 CFR 1.56(b) the ®ling and prosecution of a patent application, 2001.06 Sources of Information under 37 CFR supplemental examination, or patent reexamination 1.56 has a duty to disclose to the Of®ce all information 2001.06(a) Prior Art Cited in Related Foreign known to that individual to be material to Applications patentability as de®ned in this section. These duties, 2001.06(b) Information Relating to or From of candor and good faith and disclosure, have been Copending United States Patent codi®ed in 37 CFR 1.56 and 37 CFR 1.555, as Applications promulgated pursuant to carrying out the duties of 2001.06(c) Information From Related the Director under Sections 2, 3, 131, and 132 of Litigation and/or Title 35 of the United States Code. Proceedings 2001.06(d) Information Relating to Claims In some instances, the duty to disclose may constitute Copied From a Patent correcting erroneous material information in the 2002 Disclosure Ð By Whom and How Made record. Effective September 16, 2012, the America 2002.01 By Whom Made Invents Act (AIA) amended the patent laws to 2002.02 Must be in Writing modify notable aspects of the duty of disclosure. 2003 Disclosure __ When Made Speci®cally, the AIA eliminated the requirement 2003.01 Disclosure After Patent Is Granted that applicants disclose that an error in a patent (e.g., 2004 Aids to Compliance With Duty of change in inventorship) was made without any Disclosure deceptive intent before correction is permitted. See 2005 Comparison to Requirements for 35 U.S.C. 116, 35 U.S.C. 251, and 35 U.S.C. 256. Information This does not negate, however, the continuing 2006-2009 [Reserved] obligation to practice candor and good faith in all 2010 Of®ce Handling of Duty of dealings before the Of®ce. Disclosure/Inequitable Conduct Issues 2011 Correction of Errors in Application On October 28, 2016, the Of®ce issued a Notice of 2012 Reissue Applications Involving Issues Proposed Rulemaking proposing revisions to the of Fraud, Inequitable Conduct, and/or materiality standard for the duty to disclose Violation of Duty of Disclosure information in patent applications and reexamination 2012.01 Collateral Estoppel proceedings (duty of disclosure) in light of the 2013 Protests Involving Issues of Fraud, decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Inequitable Conduct, and/or Violation Circuit (Federal Circuit) in Therasense, Inc. v. of Duty of Disclosure Becton, Dickinson & Co., 649 F.3d 1276, 1288, 99 2014 Duty of Disclosure in Reexamination USPQ2d 1065 (Fed. Cir. 2011)(en banc ). Proceedings and Supplemental Speci®cally, the Of®ce is considering harmonizing Examination the materiality standard for the duty of disclosure to 2015 [Reserved] adopt the ªbut-forº materiality standard for 2016 Fraud, Inequitable Conduct, or inequitable conduct as set forth in Therasense and Violation of Duty of Disclosure Affects adopted in subsequent inequitable conduct cases, All Claims which will result in revisions to 37 CFR 1.56 and 2017-2022 [Reserved] 37 CFR 1.555. While these proposed rule changes

2000-1 Rev. 10.2019, June 2020 § 2001 MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE

have not yet been ®nalized, it is still important for (1) It establishes, by itself or in combination with other Of®ce stakeholders to recognize the split in how information, a prima facie case of unpatentability of a claim; materiality may be considered within the Of®ce and or in the courts. Some of the more instructive recent (2) It refutes, or is inconsistent with, a position the cases on inequitable conduct have been incorporated applicant takes in: in the discussion below to provide guidance on (i) Opposing an argument of unpatentability relied compliance with the duty of disclosure regardless on by the Of®ce, or of the materiality standard. (ii) Asserting an argument of patentability. (3) A prima facie case of unpatentability is established 2001 Duty of Disclosure, Candor, and Good when the information compels a conclusion that a claim is unpatentable under the preponderance of evidence, Faith [R-08.2017] burden-of-proof standard, giving each term in the claim its broadest reasonable construction consistent with the 37 CFR 1.56 Duty to disclose information material to speci®cation, and before any consideration is given to evidence patentability. which may be submitted in an attempt to establish a contrary conclusion of patentability. [Editor Note: Para. (c)(3) below is applicable only to patent applications ®led under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) (c) Individuals associated with the ®ling or prosecution of or 363 on or after September 16, 2012.] a patent application within the meaning of this section are: (1) Each inventor named in the application; (a) A patent by its very nature is affected with a public (2) Each attorney or agent who prepares or prosecutes interest. The public interest is best served, and the most effective the application; and patent examination occurs when, at the time an application is being examined, the Of®ce is aware of and evaluates the (3) Every other person who is substantively involved teachings of all information material to patentability. Each in the preparation or prosecution of the application and who is individual associated with the ®ling and prosecution of a patent associated with the inventor, the applicant, an assignee, or application has a duty of candor and good faith in dealing with anyone to whom there is an obligation to assign the application. the Of®ce, which includes a duty to disclose to the Of®ce all (d) Individuals other than the attorney, agent or inventor information known to that individual to be material to may comply with this section by disclosing information to the patentability as de®ned in this section. The duty to disclose attorney, agent, or inventor. information exists with respect to each pending claim until the (e) In any continuation-in-part application, the duty under claim is cancelled or withdrawn from consideration, or the this section includes the duty to disclose to the Of®ce all application becomes abandoned. Information material to the information known to the person to be material to patentability, patentability of a claim that is cancelled or withdrawn from as de®ned in paragraph (b) of this section, which became consideration need not be submitted if the information is not available between the ®ling date of the prior application and the material to the patentability of any claim remaining under national or PCT international ®ling date of the consideration in the application. There is no duty to submit continuation-in-part application. information which is not material to the patentability of any existing claim. The duty to disclose all information known to 37 CFR 1.56 (pre-AIA) Duty to disclose information material be material to patentability is deemed to be satis®ed if all to patentability. information known to be material to patentability of any claim issued in a patent was cited by the Of®ce or submitted to the [Editor Note: Para. (c)(3) below is not applicable Of®ce in the manner prescribed by §§ 1.97(b)-(d) and 1.98. to patent applications ®led under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) However, no patent will be granted on an application in or 363 on or after Sept. 16, 2012.] connection with which fraud on the Of®ce was practiced or attempted or the duty of disclosure was violated through bad ***** faith or intentional misconduct. The Of®ce encourages applicants to carefully examine: (c) Individuals associated with the ®ling or prosecution of a patent application within the meaning of this section are: (1) Prior art cited in search reports of a foreign patent ***** of®ce in a counterpart application, and (2) The closest information over which individuals (3) Every other person who is substantively involved associated with the ®ling or prosecution of a patent application in the preparation or prosecution of the application and who is believe any pending claim patentably de®nes, to make sure that associated with the inventor, with the assignee or with anyone any material information contained therein is disclosed to the to whom there is an obligation to assign the application. Of®ce. ***** (b) Under this section, information is material to 37 CFR 1.56 de®nes the duty to disclose information patentability when it is not cumulative to information already of record or being made of record in the application, and to the Of®ce.

Rev. 10.2019, June 2020 2000-2 DUTY OF DISCLOSURE § 2001.04

2001.01 Who Has Duty To Disclose 2001.02 [Reserved] [R-08.2017]

37 CFR 1.56 Duty to disclose information material to patentability. 2001.03 To Whom Duty of Disclosure Is ***** Owed [R-08.2017] (c) Individuals associated with the ®ling or prosecution of a patent application within the meaning of this section are: 37 CFR 1.56(a) states that the ªduty of candor and good faithº is owed ªin dealing with the Of®ceº and (1) Each inventor named in the application; that all associated with the ®ling and prosecution of (2) Each attorney or agent who prepares or prosecutes a patent application have a ªduty to disclose to the the application; and Of®ceº material information. This duty ªin dealing (3) Every other person who is substantively involved withº and ªtoº the Of®ce extends, of course, to all in the preparation or prosecution of the application and who is associated with the inventor, the applicant, an assignee, or dealings which such individuals have with the anyone to whom there is an obligation to assign the application. Of®ce, and is not limited to representations to or ***** dealings with the examiner. For example, the duty 37 CFR 1.56 (pre-AIA) Duty to disclose information material would extend to proceedings before the Patent Trial to patentability. and Appeal Board and the Of®ce of the ***** Commissioner for Patents. (c) Individuals associated with the ®ling or prosecution of a patent application within the meaning of this section are: 2001.04 Information Under 37 CFR 1.56(a) (1) Each inventor named in the application; [R-08.2017]

(2) Each attorney or agent who prepares or prosecutes 37 CFR 1.56 Duty to disclose information material to the application; and patentability. (3) Every other person who is substantively involved (a) A patent by its very nature is affected with a public in the preparation or prosecution of the application and who is interest. The public interest is best served, and the most effective associated with the inventor, with the assignee or with anyone patent examination occurs when, at the time an application is to whom there is an obligation to assign the application being examined, the Of®ce is aware of and evaluates the ***** teachings of all information material to patentability. Each individual associated with the ®ling and prosecution of a patent Individuals having a duty of disclosure are limited application has a duty of candor and good faith in dealing with to those who are ªsubstantively involved in the the Of®ce, which includes a duty to disclose to the Of®ce all preparation or prosecution of the application.º This information known to that individual to be material to is intended to make clear that the duty does not patentability as de®ned in this section. The duty to disclose information exists with respect to each pending claim until the extend to typists, clerks, and similar personnel who claim is cancelled or withdrawn from consideration, or the assist with an application. In accordance with application becomes abandoned. Information material to the statutory changes required by the AIA, 37 CFR patentability of a claim that is cancelled or withdrawn from 1.56(c)(3) was modi®ed to apply the duty of consideration need not be submitted if the information is not material to the patentability of any claim remaining under disclosure to those who are associated with the consideration in the application. There is no duty to submit inventor, the applicant, an assignee, or anyone to information which is not material to the patentability of any whom there is an obligation to assign the application. existing claim. The duty to disclose all information known to be material to patentability is deemed to be satis®ed if all information known to be material to patentability of any claim The duty of disclosure applies only to individuals, issued in a patent was cited by the Of®ce or submitted to the not to organizations. For instance, the duty of Of®ce in the manner prescribed by §§ 1.97(b)-(d) and 1.98. disclosure would not apply to a corporation or However, no patent will be granted on an application in institution as such. However, it would apply to connection with which fraud on the Of®ce was practiced or individuals within the corporation or institution who attempted or the duty of disclosure was violated through bad faith or intentional misconduct. The Of®ce encourages applicants were substantively involved in the preparation or to carefully examine: prosecution of the application, and actions by such (1) Prior art cited in search reports of a foreign patent individuals may affect the rights of the corporation of®ce in a counterpart application, and or institution.

2000-3 Rev. 10.2019, June 2020 § 2001.04 MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE

(2) The closest information over which individuals The term ªinformationº as used in 37 CFR 1.56 associated with the ®ling or prosecution of a patent application means all of the kinds of information required to be believe any pending claim patentably de®nes, to make sure that disclosed and includes any information which is any material information contained therein is disclosed to the Of®ce. ªmaterial to patentability.º Materiality is de®ned in ***** 37 CFR 1.56(b) and discussed herein at MPEP § 2001.05. In addition to prior art such as patents The language of 37 CFR 1.56 (and 37 CFR 1.555) and publications, 37 CFR 1.56 includes, for example, emphasizes that there is a duty of candor and good information on enablement, possible prior public faith which is broader than the duty to disclose uses, sales, offers to sell, derived knowledge, prior material information. 37 CFR 1.56 further states that invention by another, inventorship con¯icts, ªno patent will be granted on an application in litigation statements, and the like. ªMateriality is not connection with which fraud on the Of®ce was limited to prior art but embraces any information practiced or attempted or the duty of disclosure was that a reasonable examiner would be substantially violated through bad faith or intentional likely to consider important in deciding whether to misconduct.º allow an application to issue as a patent.º Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Rhone-Poulenc Rorer, The Of®ce strives to issue valid patents. The Of®ce Inc., 326 F.3d 1226, 1234, 66 USPQ2d 1481, 1486 has both an obligation not to unjustly issue patents (Fed. Cir. 2003) (emphasis in original) (®nding and an obligation not to unjustly deny patents. article which was not prior art to be material to Innovation and technological advancement are best enablement issue). served when an inventor is issued a patent with the scope of protection that is deserved. The rules serve The term ªinformationº is intended to be all to remind individuals associated with the preparation encompassing, similar to the scope of the term as and prosecution of patent applications of their duty discussed with respect to 37 CFR 1.291(a) (see of candor and good faith in their dealings with the MPEP § 1901.02). 37 CFR 1.56(a) also states: ªThe Of®ce, and will aid the Of®ce in receiving, in a Of®ce encourages applicants to carefully examine: timely manner, the information it needs to carry out (1) prior art cited in search reports of a foreign patent effective and ef®cient examination of patent of®ce in a counterpart application, and (2) the closest applications. Moreover, an incentive exists to submit information over which individuals associated with material information to the Of®ce because it may the ®ling or prosecution of a patent application result in enhanced patent quality and may avoid later believe any pending claim patentably de®nes, to questions of materiality and intent to deceive. make sure that any material information contained therein is disclosed to the Of®ce.º The de®nition of materiality in 37 CFR 1.56 is intended to provide the Of®ce with the information It should be noted that the rules are not intended to it needs in order for the examiner to make a proper require information favorable to patentability such and independent determination on patentability. The as, for example, evidence of commercial success of patent examiner should make the patentability the invention. Similarly, the rules are not intended determination after considering the relevant facts to require, for example, disclosure of information properly of record in the particular case. concerning the level of skill in the art for purposes of determining obviousness. 37 CFR 1.56 states that each individual associated with the ®ling and prosecution of a patent application 37 CFR 1.56(a) states that the duty to disclose has a duty to disclose all information known to that information exists until the application becomes individual to be material to patentability as de®ned abandoned. The duty to disclose information, in the section. Thus, the duty applies to however, does not end when an application becomes contemporaneously or presently known information. allowed but extends until a patent is granted on that The fact that information was known years ago does application. The rules provide for information being not mean that it was recognized that the information considered after a notice of allowance is mailed and is material to the present application. before the issue fee is paid (37 CFR 1.97(d)) (see

Rev. 10.2019, June 2020 2000-4 DUTY OF DISCLOSURE § 2001.06

MPEP § 609.04(b), subsection III). The rules also 2001.05 Materiality Under 37 CFR 1.56(b) provide for an application to be withdrawn from [R-08.2017] issue: 37 CFR 1.56 Duty to disclose information material to patent (A) because one or more claims are unpatentable ability. (37 CFR 1.313(c)(1)); ***** (B) for express abandonment so that information (b) Under this section, information is material to patentability when it is not cumulative to information already may be considered in a continuing application before of record or being made of record in the application, and a patent issues (37 CFR 1.313(c)(3)); or (1) It establishes, by itself or in combination with other (C) for consideration of a request for continued information, a prima facie case of unpatentability of a claim; examination (RCE) under 37 CFR 1.114 (37 CFR or 1.313(a) and (c)(2)). Note that RCE practice does (2) It refutes, or is inconsistent with, a position the not apply to utility or plant applications ®led before applicant takes in: June 8, 1995 or to design applications. See MPEP § (i) Opposing an argument of unpatentability relied 706.07(h). on by the Of®ce, or (ii) Asserting an argument of patentability. See MPEP § 1308 for additional information pertaining to withdrawal of an application from A prima facie case of unpatentability is established when the issue. information compels a conclusion that a claim is unpatentable under the preponderance of evidence, burden-of-proof standard, giving each term in the claim its broadest reasonable construction In a continuation-in-part application, individuals consistent with the speci®cation, and before any consideration covered by 37 CFR 1.56 have a duty to disclose to is given to evidence which may be submitted in an attempt to the Of®ce all information known to be material to establish a contrary conclusion of patentability. patentability which became available between the ***** ®ling date of the prior application and the national or PCT international ®ling date of the Under the rule, information is not material unless it continuation-in-part application. See 37 CFR 1.56(e). comes within the de®nition of 37 CFR 1.56(b)(1) or (2). If information is not material, there is no duty 37 CFR 1.56 provides that the duty of disclosure can to disclose the information to the Of®ce. The Of®ce be met by submitting information to the Of®ce in believes that most applicants will wish to submit the the manner prescribed by 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98. See information, however, even though they may not be MPEP § 609 et seq. Applicants are provided required to do so, to strengthen the patent and avoid certainty as to when information will be considered, the risks of an incorrect on their part on and applicants will be informed when information materiality. is not considered. Note, however, if even a document was cited to or considered in a prior examination or 2001.06 Sources of Information under 37 related Of®ce proceeding, the Of®ce may order CFR 1.56 [R-08.2017] reexamination based on the document if it raises a substantial new question of patentability. See MPEP All individuals covered by 37 CFR 1.56 (reproduced § 2242 and MPEP § 2258.01. in MPEP § 2001.01) have a duty to disclose to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Of®ce all material 37 CFR 1.555 provides for the duty of disclosure in information they are aware of regardless of the reexamination proceedings. For a discussion of source of or how they become aware of the information material to patentability in a information. See Brasseler, U.S.A. I, L.P. v. Stryker reexamination proceeding, see MPEP § 2280 or Sales Corp., 267 F.3d 1370, 1383, 60 USPQ2d 1482, MPEP § 2684. For supplemental examination and 1490 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (ªOnce an attorney, or an any ex parte reexamination proceeding ordered applicant has notice that information exists that under 35 U.S.C. 257, information material to appears material and questionable, that person cannot patentability is de®ned by 37 CFR 1.56. See 37 CFR ignore that notice in an effort to avoid his or her duty 1.625(d)(4) and MPEP § 2820. to disclose.º). Materiality controls whether

2000-5 Rev. 10.2019, June 2020 § 2001.06(a) MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE

information must be disclosed to the Of®ce, not the fraud or inequitable conduct merely by circumstances under which or the source from which withholding from the local correspondent the information is obtained. If material, the information unfavorable to patentability and information must be disclosed to the Of®ce. The claiming ignorance of United States disclosure duty to disclose material information extends to requirements. information such individuals are aware of prior to or at the time of ®ling the application or become aware of during the prosecution thereof. 2001.06(b) Information Relating to or From Copending United States Patent Applications Individuals covered by 37 CFR 1.56 may be or [R-08.2017] become aware of material information from various sources such as, for example, co-workers, trade The individuals covered by 37 CFR 1.56 have a duty shows, communications from or with competitors, to bring to the attention of the examiner, or other potential infringers, or other third parties, related Of®ce of®cial involved with the examination of a foreign applications (see MPEP § 2001.06(a)), prior particular application, information within their or copending United States patent applications (see knowledge as to other copending United States MPEP § 2001.06(b)), related litigation and/or applications which are ªmaterial to patentabilityº of post-grant proceedings (see MPEP § 2001.06(c)) the application in question. This may include and preliminary examination searches. providing the identi®cation of pending or abandoned applications ®led by at least one of the inventors or 2001.06(a) Prior Art Cited in Related assigned to the same assignee as the current Foreign Applications [R-08.2012] application that disclose similar subject matter that are not otherwise identi®ed in the current application. As set forth by the court in Armour & Applicants and other individuals, as set forth in Co. v. Swift & Co., 466 F.2d 767, 779, 175 USPQ 37 CFR 1.56, have a duty to bring to the attention 70, 79 (7th Cir. 1972): of the Of®ce any material prior art or other information cited or brought to their attention in any related foreign application. The inference that such [W]e think that it is unfair to the busy examiner, prior art or other information is material is especially no matter how diligent and well informed he strong where it has been used in rejecting the same may be, to assume that he retains details of or similar claims in the foreign application or where every pending ®le in his mind when he is it has been identi®ed in some manner as particularly reviewing a particular application . . . [T]he relevant. See Gemveto Jewelry Co. v. Lambert Bros., applicant has the burden of presenting the Inc., 542 F. Supp. 933, 216 USPQ 976 (S.D. N.Y. examiner with a complete and accurate record 1982) wherein a patent was held invalid or to support the allowance of letters patent. unenforceable because patentee's foreign counsel did not disclose to patentee's United States counsel See also MPEP § 2004, paragraph 9. or to the Of®ce prior art cited by the Dutch Patent Of®ce in connection with the patentee's Accordingly, the individuals covered by 37 CFR corresponding Dutch application. The court stated, 1.56 cannot assume that the examiner of a particular 542 F. Supp. at 943, 216 USPQ at 985: application is necessarily aware of other applications which are ªmaterial to patentabilityº of the Foreign patent attorneys representing applicants application in question, but must instead bring such for U.S. patents through local correspondent other applications to the attention of the examiner. ®rms surely must be held to the same standards See Regeneron Pharm., Inc. v. Merus B.V., 144 F. of conduct which apply to their American Supp. 3d 530, 560 (S.D.N.Y. 2015), and Dayco counterparts; a double standard of Prod., Inc. v. Total Containment, Inc., 329 F.3d accountability would allow foreign attorneys 1358, 1365-69, 66 USPQ2d 1801, 1806-08 (Fed. and their clients to escape responsibility for Cir. 2003). For example, if a particular inventor has different applications pending which disclose similar

Rev. 10.2019, June 2020 2000-6 DUTY OF DISCLOSURE § 2001.06(c)

subject matter but claim patentably indistinct allegations of ªfraud,º ªinequitable conduct,º and inventions, the existence of other applications must ªviolation of duty of disclosure.º Another example be disclosed to the examiner of each of the involved of such material information is any assertion that is applications. Similarly, the prior art references from made during litigation and/or trial proceeding which one application must be made of record in another is contradictory to assertions made to the examiner. subsequent application if such prior art references Environ Prods., Inc. v. Total Containment, Inc., 43 are ªmaterial to patentabilityº of the subsequent USPQ2d 1288, 1291 (E.D. Pa. 1997). Such application. See Dayco Prod., 329 F.3d at 1369, 66 information might arise during litigation and/or trial USPQ2d at 1808. proceeding in, for example, , admissions, including , depositions, and If the application under examination is identi®ed as other documents and testimony. a continuation, divisional, or continuation-in-part of an earlier application, the examiner will consider the Where a patent for which reissue is being sought is, prior art properly cited in the earlier application. See or has been, involved in litigation and/or trial MPEP § 609 and MPEP § 719.05, subsection (II)(A), proceeding which raised a question material to example J. The examiner must indicate in the ®rst examination of the reissue application, such as the Of®ce action whether the prior art in a related earlier validity of the patent, or any allegation of ªfraud,º application has been reviewed. Accordingly, no ªinequitable conduct,º or ªviolation of duty of separate citation of the same prior art need be made disclosure,º the existence of such litigation and/or in the later application, unless applicant wants a trial proceeding must be brought to the attention of listing of the prior art printed on the face of the the examiner by the applicant at the time of, or patent. shortly after, ®ling the application. Such information can be disclosed either in the reissue oath or 2001.06(c) Information From Related declaration, or in a separate paper, preferably Litigation and/or Trial Proceedings accompanying the application, as ®led. Litigation [R-08.2017] and/or trial proceedings that begin after ®ling of the reissue application should be promptly brought to the attention of the Of®ce. The details and The America Invents Act (AIA) added trial documents from the litigation and/or trial proceedings to be conducted by the Patent Trial and proceedings, insofar as they are ªmaterial to Appeal Board (PTAB) including inter partes review patentabilityº of the reissue application as de®ned proceedings, post-grant review, covered business in 37 CFR 1.56, should accompany the application method reviews, and derivation. In many instances, as ®led, or be submitted as promptly thereafter as these trial proceedings yield information that may possible. See Critikon, Inc. v. Becton Dickinson be considered material to pending related patent Vascular Access, Inc., 120 F.3d 1253, 1258-59, 43 applications. Where the subject matter for which a USPQ2d 1666, 1670-71 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (patent patent is being sought is or has been involved in held unenforceable due to inequitable conduct based litigation and/or a trial proceeding, or the litigation on patentee©s failure to disclose a relevant reference and/or trial proceeding yields information material and for failing to disclose ongoing litigation). to currently pending applications, the existence of such litigation and any other material information arising therefrom must be brought to the attention For example, the defenses raised against validity of of the examiner or other appropriate of®cial at the the patent, or charges of ªfraudº or ªinequitable U.S. Patent and Trademark Of®ce. In particular, conductº in the litigation, would normally be material information that is raised in trial ªmaterial to the examinationº of the reissue proceedings that is relevant to related applications application. It would, in most situations, be undergoing examination should be submitted on an appropriate to bring such defenses to the attention Information Disclosure Statement for the examiner's of the Of®ce by ®ling in the reissue application a consideration. Examples of such material copy of the court papers raising such defenses. At a information include evidence of possible prior public minimum, the applicant should call the attention of use or sales, questions of inventorship, prior art, the Of®ce to the litigation, the existence and the

2000-7 Rev. 10.2019, June 2020 § 2001.06(d) MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE

nature of any allegations relating to validity and/or Information that is not material need not be passed ªfraud,º or ªinequitable conductº relating to the along to the Of®ce. original patent, and the nature of litigation materials relating to these issues. Enough information should 2002.02 Must be in Writing [R-08.2017] be submitted to clearly inform the Of®ce of the nature of these issues so that the Of®ce can 37 CFR 1.2 Business to be transacted in writing. intelligently evaluate the need for asking for further All business with the Patent and Trademark Of®ce should be materials in the litigation. See MPEP § 1442.04. transacted in writing. The personal attendance of applicants or their attorneys or agents at the Patent and Trademark Of®ce is unnecessary. The action of the Patent and Trademark Of®ce If litigation papers of a live litigation relating to a will be based exclusively on the written record in the Of®ce. pending reissue application are ®led with the Of®ce, No attention will be paid to any alleged oral promise, stipulation, the Solicitor's Of®ce should be noti®ed of the ®ling or understanding in relation to which there is disagreement or of the litigation papers in the application ®le. If the doubt. litigation is not live, the litigation papers are 37 CFR 1.4 Nature of correspondence and signature processed by the Technology Center assigned the requirements. reissue application. ***** (b) Since each ®le must be complete in itself, a separate 2001.06(d) Information Relating to Claims copy of every paper to be ®led in a patent application, patent Copied From a Patent [R-08.2017] ®le, or other proceeding must be furnished for each ®le to which the paper pertains, even though the contents of the papers ®led in two or more ®les may be identical. The ®ling of duplicate Where claims are copied or substantially copied from copies of correspondence in the ®le of an application, patent, a patent, 37 CFR 41.202(a) requires the applicant, or other proceeding should be avoided, except in situations in at the time he or she presents the claim(s), to identify which the Of®ce requires the ®ling of duplicate copies. The the patent and the numbers of the patent claims. Of®ce may dispose of duplicate copies of correspondence in Clearly, the information required by 37 CFR the ®le of an application, patent, or other proceeding. ***** 41.202(a) as to the source of copied claims is material information under 37 CFR 1.56 and failure A disclosure under 37 CFR 1.56 must be in writing to inform the USPTO of such information may as prescribed by 37 CFR 1.2, and a copy of any such violate the duty of disclosure. disclosure must be ®led in each application or other proceeding to which the disclosure pertains (37 CFR 2002 Disclosure Ð By Whom and How Made 1.4(b)). [R-08.2012] __ 37 CFR 1.56 Duty to disclose information material to 2003 Disclosure When Made [R-08.2017] patentability. ***** 37 CFR 1.97 Filing of information disclosure statement. (a) In order for an applicant for a patent or for a reissue of (d) Individuals other than the attorney, agent or inventor a patent to have an information disclosure statement in may comply with this section by disclosing information to the compliance with § 1.98 considered by the Of®ce during the attorney, agent, or inventor. pendency of the application, the information disclosure statement ***** must satisfy one of paragraphs (b), (c), or (d) of this section. 2002.01 By Whom Made [R-08.2012] (b) An information disclosure statement shall be considered by the Of®ce if ®led by the applicant within any one of the following time periods: 37 CFR 1.56(d) makes clear that information may (1) Within three months of the ®ling date of a national be disclosed to the Of®ce through an attorney or application other than a continued prosecution application under agent of record or through a pro se inventor, and § 1.53(d); that other individuals may satisfy their duty of (2) Within three months of the date of entry of the disclosure to the Of®ce by disclosing information national stage as set forth in § 1.491 in an international to such an attorney, agent, or inventor who then is application; responsible for disclosing the same to the Of®ce. (3) Before the mailing of a ®rst Of®ce action on the merits;

Rev. 10.2019, June 2020 2000-8 DUTY OF DISCLOSURE § 2003.01

(4) Before the mailing of a ®rst Of®ce action after the be promptly submitted. That the issue fee has been ®ling of a request for continued examination under § 1.114; or paid is no reason or excuse for failing to submit (5) Within three months of the date of publication of information. See MPEP § 609.04(b). Additionally, the international registration under Hague Agreement Article applicant should be mindful of the incentives of 10(3) in an international design application. prompt ®ling of information as set forth in 37 CFR (c) An information disclosure statement shall be considered 1.704(d)(1). by the Of®ce if ®led after the, period speci®ed in paragraph (b) of this section, provided that the information disclosure statement is ®led before the mailing date of any of a ®nal action under § The presumption of validity is generally strong when 1.113, a notice of allowance under § 1.311, or an action that prior art was before and considered by the Of®ce otherwise closes prosecution in the application, and it is and weak when it was not. See Bolkcom v. accompanied by one of: Carborundum Co., 523 F.2d 492, 498, 186 USPQ (1) The statement speci®ed in paragraph (e) of this 466, 471 (6th Cir. 1975). section; or (2) The fee set forth in § 1.17(p). 2003.01 Disclosure After Patent Is Granted (d) An information disclosure statement shall be considered [R-08.2017] by the Of®ce if ®led by the applicant after the period speci®ed in paragraph (c) of this section, provided that the information disclosure statement is ®led on or before payment of the issue I. BY CITATIONS OF PRIOR ART AND WRITTEN fee and is accompanied by: STATEMENTS UNDER 37 CFR 1.501 (1) The statement speci®ed in paragraph (e) of this section; and Where a patentee or any member of the public (2) The fee set forth in § 1.17(p). (including private persons, corporate entities, and government agencies) has certain information which (e) A statement under this section must state either: they desire to have made of record in the patent ®le, (1) That each item of information contained in the they may ®le a citation of such information with the information disclosure statement was ®rst cited in any Of®ce pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 301 and 37 CFR 1.501. communication from a foreign patent of®ce in a counterpart foreign application not more than three months prior to the ®ling Such citations will be entered in the patent ®le of the information disclosure statement; or without comment by the Of®ce. Information which (2) That no item of information contained in the may be ®led under 37 CFR 1.501 is limited to prior information disclosure statement was cited in a communication art patents, printed publications or written statements from a foreign patent of®ce in a counterpart foreign application, of the patent owner ®led by the patent owner in a and, to the knowledge of the person signing the certi®cation proceeding before a federal court or the Of®ce in after making reasonable inquiry, no item of information contained in the information disclosure statement was known which the patent owner took a position on the scope to any individual designated in § 1.56(c) more than three months of any patent claim. Any citations which include prior to the ®ling of the information disclosure statement. items other than those items expressly enumerated ***** in 37 CFR 1.501 will not be entered in the patent ®le. See MPEP § 2202 through § 2208. The provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 specify when an information disclosure statement will be considered II. BY EX PARTE REEXAMINATION as a matter of right and when a certi®cation must be made and/or fee submitted in order to have the Where any person, including patentee, has prior art information disclosure statement considered. In any patents and/or printed publications which the person circumstance, information should be submitted desires to have the U.S. Patent and Trademark Of®ce promptly. consider after a patent has issued, such person may ®le a request for ex parte reexamination of the An applicant, attorney, or agent who is aware of patent (see 37 CFR 1.510 and MPEP § 2209 through material prior art or other information and its § 2220). signi®cance should submit the information early in prosecution, e.g., before the ®rst Of®ce action, and not wait until after allowance. Potentially material information discovered late in the prosecution should

2000-9 Rev. 10.2019, June 2020 § 2004 MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE

III. BY SUPPLEMENTAL EXAMINATION avoid problems with the duty of disclosure. Though compliance with these procedures may not be Where a patent owner desires that the Of®ce required, they are presented as helpful suggestions consider, reconsider, or correct information believed or best practices to avoid duty of disclosure to be relevant to the patent, the patent owner may problems. ®le a request for supplemental examination. See 37 CFR 1.601-1.625 and MPEP Chapter 2800. 1. Many attorneys, both corporate and private, are Supplemental examination became available on using letters and questionnaires for applicants and September 16, 2012, as a result of new section 257 others involved with the ®ling and prosecution of of Title 35, United States Code, which was added the application and checklists for themselves and by Public Law 112-29, enacted on September 16, applicants to ensure compliance with the duty of 2011, known as the Leahy-Smith America Invents disclosure. The letter generally explains the duty of Act (AIA). In particular, 35 U.S.C. 257(c)(1) states disclosure and what it means to the inventor and that ª[a] patent shall not be held unenforceable on assignee. The questionnaire asks the inventor and the basis of conduct relating to information that had assignee questions about: not been considered, was inadequately considered, or was incorrect in a prior examination of the patent __ the origin of the invention and its point of if the information was considered, reconsidered, or departure from what was previously known and in corrected during a supplemental examination of the the prior art, patent.º Therefore, a patent owner may insulate the patent from being held unenforceable based on information submitted in a properly ®led __ possible public uses and sales, supplemental examination request. __ prior publication, knowledge, patents, foreign Unlike ex parte reexamination practice, the patents, etc. information that the patent owner may request to be considered, reconsidered, or corrected in a The checklist is used by the attorney to ensure that supplemental examination proceeding is not limited the applicant has been informed of the duty of to patents, printed publications, and patent owner disclosure and that the attorney has inquired of and written statements under 35 U.S.C. 301. The cited material prior art. "information" may include any information that the patent owner believes to be relevant to the patent. The use of these types of aids would appear to be For example, the information may include not only most helpful, though not required, in identifying a patent or a journal article, but also a sales invoice, prior art and may well help the attorney and the or a transcript of an audio or video recording. In client avoid or more easily explain a potentially addition, the information submitted as part of a embarrassing and harmful ªfraudº allegation. request for supplemental examination may involve any ground of patentability, such as, for example, patent eligible subject matter, anticipation, public 2. It is desirable to ask questions about inventorship. use or sale, obviousness, written description, Who is the proper inventor? Are there disputes or enablement, and inde®niteness. possible disputes about inventorship? If there are questions, call them to the attention of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Of®ce. 2004 Aids to Compliance With Duty of Disclosure [R-10.2019] 3. It is desirable to ask questions of the inventor about the disclosure of the best mode. Make sure While it is not appropriate to attempt to set forth that the best mode is described. See MPEP §§ 2165 procedures by which attorneys, agents, and other - 2165.04. individuals may ensure compliance with the duty of disclosure, the items listed below are offered as examples of possible procedures which could help

Rev. 10.2019, June 2020 2000-10 DUTY OF DISCLOSURE § 2004

4. It is desirable for an attorney or agent to make Inc., 763 F.3d 1354, 1361-62, 112 USPQ2d 1081, certain that the inventor, especially a foreign 1087-88 (Fed. Cir. 2014)(®nding that the patent inventor, recognizes his or her responsibilities in speci®cation omitted material information was signing the oath or declaration. See 37 CFR 1.69(a). among the facts that supported a conclusion that the patent is unenforceable due to inequitable conduct). 37 CFR 1.69 Foreign language oaths and declarations. It is particularly important for an attorney or agent (a) Whenever an individual making an oath or declaration to review, before ®ling, an application which was cannot understand English, the oath or declaration must be in a prepared by someone else, e.g., a foreign applicant language that such individual can understand and shall state that such individual understands the content of any documents to or practitioner. It is also important that an attorney which the oath or declaration relates. or agent make sure that foreign clients, including ***** foreign applicants, attorneys, and agents understand the requirements of the duty of disclosure, and that Note MPEP § 602.06 for a more detailed discussion. the U.S. attorney or agent review any information disclosure statements or citations to ensure that 5. It is desirable for an attorney or agent to carefully compliance with 37 CFR 1.56 is present. See evaluate and explain to the applicant and others Semiconductor Energy Laboratory Co. v. Samsung involved the scope of the claims, particularly the Electronics Co., 204 F.3d 1368, 54 USPQ2d 1001 broadest claims. Ask speci®c questions about (Fed. Cir. 2000). In this case, during prosecution the possible prior art which might be material in patentee submitted an untranslated 29-page Japanese reference to the broadest claim or claims. There is reference as well as a concise explanation of its some tendency to mistakenly evaluate prior art in relevance and an existing one-page partial English the light of the gist of what is regarded as the translation, both of which were directed to less invention or narrower interpretations of the claims, material portions of the reference. The untranslated rather than measuring the art against the broadest portions of the Japanese reference ªcontained a more claim with all of its reasonable interpretations. It is complete combination of the elements claimed [in desirable to pick out the broadest claim or claims the patent] than anything else before the PTO.º 204 and measure the materiality of prior art against a F.3d at 1374, 54 USPQ2d at 1005. The patentee, reasonably broad interpretation of these claims. whose native language was Japanese, was held to have understood the materiality of the reference. 6. It may be useful to evaluate the materiality of prior ªThe duty of candor does not require that the art or other information from the viewpoint of applicant translate every foreign reference, but only whether it is the closest prior art or other that the applicant refrain from submitting partial information. This will tend to put the prior art or translations and concise explanations that it knows other information in better perspective. See will misdirect the examiner's attention from the Semiconductor Energy Laboratory Co. v. Samsung reference's relevant teaching.º 204 F.3d at 1378, Electronics Co., 204 F.3d 1368, 1374, 54 USPQ2d 54 USPQ2d at 1008. See also Gemveto Jewelry Co. 1001, 1005 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (ªA withheld reference v. Lambert Bros., Inc., 542 F. Supp. 933, 216 USPQ may be highly material when it discloses a more 976 (S.D.N.Y. 1982) wherein a patent was held complete combination of relevant features, even if invalid or unenforceable because patentee's foreign those features are before the patent examiner in other counsel did not disclose to patentee's United States references.º (citations omitted)). However, 37 CFR counsel or to the Of®ce prior art cited by the Dutch 1.56 may still require the submission of prior art or Patent Of®ce in connection with the patentee's other information which is not as close as that of corresponding Dutch application. The court stated, record. 542 F. Supp. at 943, 216 USPQ at 985:

7. Care should be taken to see that prior art or other Foreign patent attorneys representing applicants information cited in a speci®cation or in an for U.S. patents through local correspondent information disclosure statement is properly ®rms surely must be held to the same standards described and that the information is not incorrectly of conduct which apply to their American or incompletely characterized. See Apotex v. UCB, counterparts; a double standard of

2000-11 Rev. 10.2019, June 2020 § 2004 MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE

accountability would allow foreign attorneys patents). It is desirable to be particularly careful that and their clients to escape responsibility for prior art or other information in one application is fraud or inequitable conduct merely by cited to the examiner in other applications to which withholding from the local correspondent it would be material. Do not assume that an examiner information unfavorable to patentability and will necessarily remember, when examining a claiming ignorance of United States disclosure particular application, other applications which the requirements. examiner is examining, or has examined. A ªlapse on the part of the examiner does not excuse the applicant.º KangaROOS U.S.A., Inc. v. Caldor, Inc., 8. Care should be taken to see that inaccurate 778 F.2d 1571, 1576, 228 USPQ 32, 35 (Fed. Cir. statements, inaccurate evidence or inaccurate 1985); see also MPEP § 2001.06(b). experiments are not introduced into the record, either inadvertently or intentionally. For example, stating 10. When in doubt, it is desirable and safest to that an experiment ªwas runº or ªwas conductedº submit information. Even though the attorney, agent, when, in fact, the experiment was not run or or applicant doesn't consider it necessarily material, conducted is a misrepresentation of the facts. See someone else may see it differently and embarrassing Apotex v. UCB, Inc., 763 F.3d 1359, 112 USPQ2d questions can be avoided. The court in U.S. 1085 (Fed. Cir. 2014). No results should be Industries v. Norton Co., 210 USPQ 94, 107 (N.D. represented as actual results unless they have actually N.Y. 1980) stated ª[i]n short, the question of been achieved. Paper or prophetic examples should relevancy in close cases, should be left to the not be described using the past tense. Hoffman-La examiner and not the applicant.º See also LaBounty Roche, Inc. v. Promega Corp., 323 F.3d 1354, 1367, Mfg., Inc. v. U.S. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 958 F.2d 66 USPQ2d 1385, 1394 (Fed. Cir. 2003); see also 1066, 22 USPQ2d 1025 (Fed. Cir. 1992). MPEP § 608.01(p), subsection II and § 707.07(l). Also, misrepresentations can occur when experiments which were run or conducted are 11. It may be desirable to submit information about inaccurately reported in the speci®cation, e.g., an prior uses and sales even if it appears that they may experiment is changed by leaving out one or more have been experimental, not involve the speci®cally ingredients. See Steierman v. Connelly, 192 USPQ claimed invention, or not encompass a completed 433 (Bd. Pat. Int. 1975); 192 USPQ 446 (Bd. Pat. invention. See TransWeb v. 3M, 812 F.3d 1295, Int. 1976). See Intellect Wireless v. HTC Corp., 732 1300, 117 USPQ2d 1617, 1619-20 (Fed. Cir. 2016). F. 3d 1339, 1342, 108 USPQ2d 1563, 1565 (Fed. See also Hycor Corp. v. The Schlueter Co., 740 F.2d Cir. 2013) wherein applicants submitted a declaration 1529, 1534-37, 222 USPQ 553, 557-59 (Fed. Cir. under 37 CFR 1.131 containing false statements 1984), and LaBounty Mfg., Inc. v. U.S. Int'l Trade regarding reduction to practice of the claimed Comm'n, 958 F.2d 1066, 22 USPQ2d 1025 (Fed. invention. Cir. 1992).

9. Do not rely on the examiner of a particular 12. Submit information promptly. An applicant, application to be aware of other applications attorney, or agent who is aware of prior art or other belonging to the same applicant or assignee. It is information and its signi®cance should submit the desirable to call such applications to the attention of same early in prosecution, e.g., before the ®rst action the examiner even if there is only a question that by the examiner, and not wait until after allowance. they might be ªmaterial to patentabilityº of the Potentially material information discovered late in application the examiner is considering. See Dayco the prosecution should be immediately submitted. Prod., Inc. v. Total Containment, Inc., 329 F.3d That the issue fee has been paid is no reason or 1358, 1365-69, 66 USPQ2d 1801, 1806-08 (Fed. excuse for failing to submit information. See Cir. 2003) (contrary decision of another examiner Elmwood Liquid Products, Inc. v. Singleton Packing reviewing substantially similar claims is `material'; Corp., 328 F. Supp. 974, 170 USPQ 398 (M.D. Fla. copending application may be `material' even though 1971). it cannot result in a shorter patent term, when it could affect the rights of the patentee to assign the issued

Rev. 10.2019, June 2020 2000-12 DUTY OF DISCLOSURE § 2005

13. It is desirable to avoid the submission of long de®ned in 35 U.S.C. 100(i) that occurs before March lists of documents if it can be avoided. Eliminate 16, 2013; or (2) is ever designated as a continuation, clearly irrelevant and marginally pertinent divisional, or continuation-in-part of an application cumulative information. If a long list is submitted, that contains or contained at any time a claim to a highlight those documents which have been claimed invention that has an effective ®ling date speci®cally brought to applicant's attention and/or before March 16, 2013. are known to be of most signi®cance. See Penn Yan Boats, Inc. v. Sea Lark Boats, Inc., 359 F. Supp. 948, Note pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) disquali®es pre-AIA 175 USPQ 260 (S.D. Fla. 1972), aff'd, 479 F.2d 35 U.S.C. 102(f)/103 or 102(g)/103 prior art which 1338, 178 USPQ 577 (5th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, was, at the time the second invention was made, 414 U.S. 874 (1974). But cf. Molins PLC v. Textron owned by or subject to an obligation of assignment Inc., 48 F.3d 1172, 33 USPQ2d 1823 (Fed. Cir. to, the person who owned the ®rst invention. Further 1995). note that pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) disquali®es pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)/103 prior art for 14. Watch out for continuation-in-part (CIP) applications ®led on or after November 29, 1999. applications where intervening material information See MPEP §§ 2146 - 2146.02. or documents may exist; particularly watch out for foreign patents and publications related to the parent 16. Watch out for information picked up or disclosed application and dated more than 1 year before the by the inventors and others at conventions, plant ®ling date of the CIP. These and other intervening visits, in-house reviews, etc. See, for example, Dale documents may be material information. See In re Electronics v. R.C.L. Electronics, 488 F.2d 382, Ruscetta, 255 F.2d 687, 690-91, 118 USPQ 101, 104 386-87, 180 USPQ 225, 228 (1st Cir. 1973). (CCPA 1958); In re van Langenhoven, 458 F.2d 132, 173 USPQ 426 (CCPA 1972); Chromalloy 17. Make sure that all of the individuals who are American Corp. v. Alloy Surfaces Co., 339 F. Supp. subject to the duty of disclosure, such as spelled out 859, 173 USPQ 295 (D. Del. 1972). in 37 CFR 1.56, are informed of and ful®ll their duty. 15. Watch out for information that might be deemed to be prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(f) and 18. Finally, if information was speci®cally (g). considered and discarded as not material, this fact might be recorded in an attorney's ®le or applicant's Prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(f) may be ®le, including the reason for discarding it. If available under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103. See judgment might have been bad or something might OddzOn Products, Inc. v. Just Toys, Inc., 122 F.3d have been overlooked inadvertently, a note made at 1396, 1401, 43 USPQ2d 1641, 1644 (Fed. Cir. the time of evaluation might be an invaluable aid in 1997)(35 U.S.C. ª102(f) is a prior art provision for explaining that the mistake was honest and purposes of § 103º); Dale Electronics v. R.C.L. excusable. Though such records are not required, Electronics, 488 F.2d 382, 386, 180 USPQ 225, 227 they could be helpful in recalling and explaining (1st. Cir. 1973); and Ex parte Andresen, 212 USPQ actions in the event of a question of ªfraudº or 100, 102 (Bd. App. 1981). ªinequitable conductº raised at a later time.

Note also that evidence of prior invention under 2005 Comparison to Requirements for pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(g) may be available under Information [R-08.2017] pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103, such as in In re Bass, 474 F.2d 1276, 177 USPQ 178 (CCPA 1973). In Under 37 CFR 1.56, each individual associated with addition, the AIA provides that the provisions of the ®ling and prosecution of a patent application has pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(g) apply to each claim of an a duty to disclose on his or her own initiative AIA application for patent if the patent application: information material to patentability under 37 CFR (1) contains or contained at any time a claim to a 1.56. By contrast, under 37 CFR 1.105, an examiner claimed invention having an effective ®ling date as or other Of®ce employee is authorized to require,

2000-13 Rev. 10.2019, June 2020 § 2006-2009 MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE

from parties identi®ed in 37 CFR 1.56, information Accordingly, the examiner does not investigate and reasonably necessary to examine or treat a matter in reject original or reissue applications under 37 CFR an application. The provisions of 37 CFR 1.105 are 1.56. Likewise, the examiner will not comment upon detailed in MPEP § 704.10 - MPEP § 704.14 et seq. duty of disclosure issues which are brought to the The criteria for requiring information under attention of the Of®ce except to note, in appropriate 37 CFR 1.56, i.e., materiality to the patentability of circumstances, that such issues are not considered claimed subject matter, is substantially higher than by the examiner during examination of patent the criteria for requiring information under 37 CFR applications, or during reexamination proceedings 1.105, i.e., reasonable necessity to the examination or supplemental examination. of the application. See, e.g., Star Fruits S.N.C. v. United States, 280 F.Supp.2d 512, 515-61 (E.D. Va Issues of fraud and/or inequitable conduct in an 2003)(ªBeyond that which a patent applicant is interference proceeding before the Board may be duty-bound to disclose pursuant to 37 CFR 1.56, an considered by the Board if there is a showing of good examiner may require the production of `such cause. information as may be reasonably necessary to properly examine or treat the matter.'º). See Hyatt 2011 Correction of Errors in Application v. USPTO, 797 F.3d 1374, 116 USPQ2d 1331 (Fed. [R-08.2017] Cir. 2015). Thus, information required by the examiner pursuant to 37 CFR 1.105 would not In some instances an application may be ®led necessarily be considered material to patentability containing an error. For example, an application may in itself, but would be necessary to obtain a complete be ®led with an inventorship error. record from which a determination of patentability will be made. 35 U.S.C. 116 Inventors. ***** 2006-2009 [Reserved] (c) CORRECTION OF ERRORS IN APPLICATION.Ð Whenever through error a person is named in an application for patent as the inventor, or through an error an inventor is not named in an application, the Director may permit the application 2010 Of®ce Handling of Duty of to be amended accordingly, under such terms as he prescribes. Disclosure/Inequitable Conduct Issues [R-08.2017] For applications ®led on or after September 16, 2012, an inventorship error may be corrected without disclosure of the circumstances of the error. It is the courts and not the Of®ce that are in the best Previously under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 116, applicants position to fashion an equitable remedy to ®t the had to specify that such changes ªarose without any precise facts in those cases where inequitable deceptive intentº. Even though the ªdeceptive intentº conduct is established. Furthermore, inequitable language has been removed from the law, applicants conduct is not set by statute as a criteria for still have a duty to exercise candor and good faith patentability but rather is a judicial application of in all dealings with the Of®ce. When an error is the doctrine of unclean hands which is appropriate discovered, applicant should take steps to ensure to be handled by the courts rather than by an that the error is corrected as soon as possible. See administrative body. Because of the lack of tools in MPEP § 602.01 et seq. and MPEP § 602.09 for the Of®ce to deal with this issue and because of its additional information. sensitive nature and potential impact on a patent, examiner determinations generally will not deter subsequent litigation of the same issue in the courts In instances when an applicant submits other on appeal or in separate litigation. In addition, information (i.e., errors other than inventorship) to examiner determinations would signi®cantly add to the Of®ce that is incorrectly or incompletely the expense and time involved in obtaining a patent characterized, applicant should: with little or no bene®t to the patent owner or any other parties with an interest.

Rev. 10.2019, June 2020 2000-14 DUTY OF DISCLOSURE § 2012

expressly advise the PTO of [the declaration, as required by pre-AIA 37 CFR misrepresentation's] existence, stating 1.175(a)(2), (b)(1), and (b)(2), that all ªerrorsº arose speci®cally wherein it resides. . . . It does not ªwithout any deceptive intention.º However, the suf®ce that one knowing of misrepresentations examiner should not normally comment or question in an application or in its prosecution merely as to whether the averred statement as to lack of supplies the examiner with accurate facts deceptive intention appears correct or true. See without calling his attention to the untrue or MPEP § 1414. misleading assertions sought to be overcome, leaving him to formulate his own conclusions. In re Heany, 1911 C.D. 138, 180 (1911), unequivocally states: See Intellect Wireless v. HTC Corp., 732 F.3d 1339, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Where such a condition [fraudulent or deceptive intention] is shown to exist the right to reissue In order to assure that any correction is fully the patent is forfeited. considered by the examiner, applicants should ®le the correction ªopenlyº, as in ®ling the correction Similarly, the court in In re Clark, 522 F.2d 623, under separate cover so that the examiner will not 627, 187 USPQ 209, 213 (CCPA 1975) indicated: be left to determine what is correct. Id. See also Rohm & Haas Co. v. Crystal Chemical Co., 722 Reissue is not available to rescue a patentee F.2d 1556, 1572, 220 USPQ 289, 301 (Fed. Cir. who had presented claims limited to avoid 1983). 37 CFR 1.4(c) requires that each distinct particular prior art and then had failed to subject must be contained in a separate paper to disclose that prior art . . . after that failure to avoid confusion and delay in responding. disclose has resulted in invalidating of the claims. 2012 Reissue Applications Involving Issues of Fraud, Inequitable Conduct, and/or It is clear that ªfraudº cannot be purged through the Violation of Duty of Disclosure [R-08.2017] reissue process. See conclusions of Law 89 and 91 in Intermountain Research and Eng'g Co. v. [Editor Note: This MPEP section is only applicable Hercules Inc., 171 USPQ 577, 631-32 (C.D. Cal. to reissue applications ®led before September 16, 1971). 2012. For reissue applications ®led on or after September 16, 2012, the requirement to state that Clearly, where several patents or applications stem the errors arose "without any deceptive intention" was eliminated consistent with the America Invents from an original application which contained Act (AIA) amendments to 35 U.S.C. 251.] fraudulent claims ultimately allowed, the doctrine of unclean hands bars allowance or enforcement of any of the claims of any of the applications or Questions of ªfraud,º ªinequitable conduct,º or patents. See Keystone Driller Co. v. General violation of ªduty of disclosureº or ªcandor and good Excavator Co., 290 U.S. 240, 245, 19 USPQ 228, faithº can arise in reissue applications. 230 (1933); East Chicago Machine Tool Corp. v. Stone Container Corp., 181 USPQ 744, 748 (N.D. ªERROR WITHOUT ANY DECEPTIVE Ill.), modi®ed, 185 USPQ 210 (N.D. Ill. 1974). See INTENTIONº also Chromalloy American Corp. v. Alloy Surfaces Co., 339 F. Supp. 859, 173 USPQ 295 (D.Del. 1972) For reissue applications ®led prior to September 16, and Strong v. General Electric Co., 305 F. Supp. 2012, both pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 251 and pre-AIA 37 1084, 162 USPQ 141 (N.D. Ga. 1969), aff'd, 434 CFR 1.175 require that the reissue oath or declaration F.2d 1042, 168 USPQ 8 (5th Cir. 1970), cert. must state that the error arose ªwithout any deceptive denied, 403 U.S. 906 (1971) where fraud or intention.º Further, the examiner should determine inequitable conduct affecting only certain claims or whether applicant has averred in the reissue oath or only one of related patents was held to affect the

2000-15 Rev. 10.2019, June 2020 § 2012.01 MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE

other claims or patent. Clearly, ªfraudº practiced or fair chance to litigate the validity of his patent in attempted in an application which issues as a patent ªthe earlier case.º See also Ex parte Varga, 189 is ªfraudº practiced or attempted in connection with USPQ 209 (Bd. App. 1973). As stated in Kaiser any subsequent application to reissue that patent. Industries Corp. v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., The reissue application and the patent are inseparable 515 F.2d 964, 987, 185 USPQ 343, 362 (3rd Cir. as far as questions of ªfraud,º ªinequitable conduct,º 1975): or ªviolation of the duty of disclosureº are concerned. See In re Heany, supra; and Norton v. In fashioning the rule of Blonder-Tongue, Curtiss, 433 F.2d 779, 792, 167 USPQ 532, 543 Justice White for a unanimous Court made it (CCPA 1970), wherein the court stated: clear that a determination of patent invalidity, after a thorough and equitable judicial inquiry, We take this to indicate that any conduct which creates a collateral estoppel barrier to further will prevent the enforcement of a patent after litigation to enforce that patent. the patent issues should, if discovered earlier, prevent the issuance of the patent. Under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 251, the Director can reissue a patent only if there is ªerror without any Clearly, if a reissue patent would not be enforceable deceptive intention.º The Director is without after reissue because of ªfraud,º ªinequitable authority to reissue a patent when ªdeceptive conductº or ªviolation of the duty of disclosureº intentionº was present during prosecution of the during the prosecution of the patent sought to be parent application. See In re Clark, 522 F.2d 62, reissued, the reissue patent application should not 187 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1975) and In re Heany, 1911 be allowed. Where no investigation is needed to C.D. 138, 180 (1911). Thus, the collateral estoppel establish such circumstances, an appropriate remedy barrier applies where reissue is sought of a patent would be to reject the claims in the reissue which has been held invalid or unenforceable for application in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 251. ªfraudº or ªviolation of duty of disclosureº in procuring of said patent. It was held in In re Kahn, See MPEP § 1448 for information pertaining to the 202 USPQ 772, 773 (Comm'r Pat. 1979): examination of a resissue application when there is an admission or judicial determination of fraud, Therefore, since the Kahn patent was held inequitable conduct or violation of the duty of invalid, inter alia, for ªfailure to disclose disclosure. material facts of which * * * [Kahn] was awareº this application may be stricken under 2012.01 Collateral Estoppel [R-08.2017] 37 CFR 1.56 via the doctrine of collateral estoppel as set forth in Blonder-Tongue, supra. [Editor Note: This MPEP section is only applicable ***** to reissue applications ®led before September 16, The Patent and Trademark Of®ce . . . has found 2012. For reissue applications ®led on or after no clear justi®cation for not adhering to the September 16, 2012, the requirement to state that doctrine of collateral estoppel under the errors arose "without any deceptive intention" Blonder-Tongue in this case. Applicant has had was eliminated consistent with the America Invents Act (AIA) amendments to 35 U.S.C. 251.] his day in court. He appears to have had a full and fair chance to litigate the validity of his patent. The Supreme Court in Blonder-Tongue Labs., Inc. v. Univ. of Ill. Found., 402 U.S. 313, 169 USPQ 513 (1971) set forth the rule that once a patent has been See MPEP § 2259 for collateral estoppel in declared invalid via judicial inquiry, a collateral reexamination proceedings. estoppel barrier is created against further litigation involving the patent, unless the patentee- can demonstrate ªthat he did not haveº a full and

Rev. 10.2019, June 2020 2000-16 DUTY OF DISCLOSURE § 2014

2013 Protests Involving Issues of Fraud, patentability of a cancelled claim need not be submitted if the information is not material to patentability of any claim Inequitable Conduct, and/or Violation of remaining under consideration in the reexamination proceeding. Duty of Disclosure [R-08.2017] The duty to disclose all information known to be material to patentability in a reexamination proceeding is deemed to be satis®ed if all information known to be material to patentability 37 CFR 1.291 permits protests by the public against of any claim in the patent after issuance of the reexamination pending applications. certi®cate was cited by the Of®ce or submitted to the Of®ce in an information disclosure statement. However, the duties of Submissions under 37 CFR 1.291 are not limited to candor, good faith, and disclosure have not been complied with if any fraud on the Of®ce was practiced or attempted or the duty prior art documents such as patents and publications, of disclosure was violated through bad faith or intentional but are intended to include any information, which misconduct by, or on behalf of, the patent owner in the in the protestor's opinion, would make or have made reexamination proceeding. Any information disclosure statement the grant of the patent improper (see MPEP § must be ®led with the items listed in § 1.98(a) as applied to individuals associated with the patent owner in a reexamination 1901.02). This includes, of course, information proceeding, and should be ®led within two months of the date indicating the presence of ªfraudº or ªinequitable of the order for reexamination, or as soon thereafter as possible. conductº or ªviolation of the duty of disclosure,º ***** which will be entered in the application ®le, (c) The responsibility for compliance with this section rests generally without comment on the inequitable upon the individuals designated in paragraph (a) of this section conduct issues raised in it. and no evaluation will be made by the Of®ce in the reexamination proceeding as to compliance with this section. Protests should be in conformance with 37 CFR If questions of compliance with this section are raised by the patent owner or the third party requester during a reexamination 1.291(a) and (b), and include a statement of the proceeding, they will be noted as unresolved questions in alleged facts involved, the point or points to be accordance with § 1.552(c). reviewed, and the action requested. Any briefs or memoranda in support of the petition, and any As provided in 37 CFR 1.555, the duty of disclosure af®davits, declarations, depositions, exhibits, or other in reexamination proceedings applies to the patent material in support of the alleged facts, should owner and individuals associated with the patent accompany the protest. owner. That duty is a continuing obligation on the part of the patent owner throughout the proceedings. Any fraud practiced or attempted on the Of®ce or 2014 Duty of Disclosure in Reexamination any violation of the duty of disclosure through bad Proceedings and Supplemental Examination faith or intentional misconduct by any such [R-08.2017] individual results in noncompliance with 37 CFR 1.555(a). Any such issues raised by the patent owner 37 CFR 1.555 Information material to patentability in ex parte reexamination and inter partes reexamination or the third party requester during a reexamination proceedings. proceeding will merely be noted as unresolved (a) A patent by its very nature is affected with a public questions under 37 CFR 1.552(c). See MPEP § 2258 interest. The public interest is best served, and the most effective for information material to patentability in ex parte reexamination occurs when, at the time a reexamination reexamination proceedings and MPEP § 2658 for proceeding is being conducted, the Of®ce is aware of and inter partes reexamination proceedings. evaluates the teachings of all information material to patentability in a reexamination proceeding. Each individual associated with the patent owner in a reexamination proceeding For the patent owner's duty to disclose prior or has a duty of candor and good faith in dealing with the Of®ce, concurrent proceedings in which the patent is or was which includes a duty to disclose to the Of®ce all information involved, see MPEP § 2282 (for ex parte known to that individual to be material to patentability in a re examination proceeding. The individuals who have a duty to reexamination), § 2686 (for inter partes disclose to the Of®ce all information known to them to be reexamination), and § 2001.06(c). material to patentability in a re examination proceeding are the patent owner, each attorney or agent who represents the patent In supplemental examination, the duty of disclosure owner, and every other individual who is substantively involved on behalf of the patent owner in a re examination proceeding. applies to the patent owner and individuals The duty to disclose the information exists with respect to each associated with the patent owner as de®ned in 37 claim pending in the reexamination proceeding until the claim CFR 1.555. However, as provided by 37 CFR is cancelled. Information material to the patentability the

2000-17 Rev. 10.2019, June 2020 § 2015 MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE

1.625(d)(4), information material to patentability is generally, cases collected in 4 Chisum, de®ned by 37 CFR 1.56 in supplemental examination PATENTS, paragraph 19.03[6] at 19-85 n. 10 and any ex parte reexamination proceeding ordered (1984). Inequitable conduct ªgoes to the patent under 35 U.S.C. 257. Furthermore, 37 CFR 1.620(g) right as a whole, independently of particular provides that, if the Of®ce becomes aware, during claims.º In re Clark, 522 F.2d 623, 626, 187 the course of a supplemental examination or of any USPQ 209, 212 (CCPA). ex parte reexamination ordered under 35 U.S.C. 257 as a result of the supplemental examination The court noted in footnote 8 of Stevens: proceeding, that a material fraud on the Of®ce may have been committed in connection with the patent requested to be examined, the supplemental In In re Multiple Litigation Involving Frost examination proceeding or any ex parte Patent, 540 F.2d 601, 611, 191 USPQ 241, 249 reexamination proceeding ordered under 35 U.S.C. (3rd. Cir. 1976), some claims were upheld 257 will continue. The matter will be referred to the despite nondisclosure with respect to others. U.S. Attorney General in accordance with 35 U.S.C. The case is not precedent in this court. 257(e). As stated in Gemveto Jewelry Co. v. Lambert Bros., For the patent owner's duty to disclose prior or Inc., 542 F. Supp. 933, 943, 216 USPQ 976, 984 concurrent proceedings in which the patent is or was (S. D. N. Y. 1984) (quoting Patent Law Perspectives, involved in supplemental examination, see MPEP § 1977 Developments, § G.1 [1]-189): 2820. The gravamen of the fraud defense is that the 2015 [Reserved] patentee has failed to discharge his duty of dealing with the examiner in a manner free from the taint of ªfraud or other inequitable 2016 Fraud, Inequitable Conduct, or conduct.º If such conduct is established in Violation of Duty of Disclosure Affects All connection with the prosecution of a patent, the Claims [R-08.2017] fact that the lack of candor did not directly affect all the claims in the patent has never A ®nding of ªfraud,º ªinequitable conduct,º or been the governing principle. It is the violation of duty of disclosure with respect to any inequitable conduct that generates the claim in an application or patent, renders all the unenforceability of the patent and we cannot claims thereof unpatentable or invalid. See think of cases where a patentee partially Therasense Inc. v. Becton Dickinson and Co., 649 escaped the consequences of his wrongful acts F.3d 1276, 1288, 99 USPQ2d 1065, 1071 (Fed. Cir. by arguing that he only committed acts of 2011), Chromalloy American Corp. v. Alloy omission or commission with respect to a Surfaces Co., 339 F. Supp. 859, 173 USPQ 295 limited number of claims. It is an all or nothing (D.Del. 1972) and Strong v. General Electric Co., proposition. [Emphasis in original.] 305 F. Supp. 1084, 162 USPQ 141 (N.D. Ga. 1969), aff'd, 434 F.2d 1042, 168 USPQ 8 (5th Cir. 1970), 2017-2022 [Reserved] cert. denied, 403 U.S. 906 (1971). In J. P. Stevens & Co. v. Lex Tex Ltd., 747 F.2d 1553, 1561, 223 USPQ 1089, 1093-94 (Fed. Cir. 1984), the court stated:

Once a court concludes that inequitable conduct occurred, all the claims Ð not just the particular claims in which the inequitable conduct is directly connected Ð are unenforceable. See

Rev. 10.2019, June 2020 2000-18