Patent Hawk - Infringement Defense

A company accused of patent infringement hires a law firm to defend them before the court. But the vast majority of patent cases settle out of court, before trial. That is because the merits of a case become clear, and one party backs down. The quicker those facts come to light, the lower the legal fees. The more compelling the evidence of invalidity or non-infringement, the lower the settlement figure.

Patent Hawk economically assists attorneys representing defendants in litigation, and, beforehand - companies accused of infringement, where counsel prepares a clearing opinion; what is commonly termed a "conflict."

Commonly, there are two ways to attack an infringement assertion: invalidity & non-infringement. To those ends, there are three aspects of patent defense: [1] prior art search to invalidate asserted patent claims; [2] claim construction to properly construe the meaning of claim terms, and hence the scope of claims; [3] infringement analysis: mapping claims to an accused product in light of the claim construction.

Another charge that sometimes may be leveled against a patentee is inequitable conduct. Typically, inequitable conduct takes the form of failing to disclose relevant prior art to the patent office (PTO) during prosecution of a patent. Finding inequitable conduct invalidates the entire patent.

The two facets of inequitable conduct are the materiality of the withheld prior art, and intent to deceive. Case law precedent is that the more material the prior art is, the more that intent may be presumed, thus lessening the burden of proving intent, which is typically the sticking point of effecting an inequitable conduct charge.

Patent Hawk helps those accused of infringement develop and invalidity position: prior art invalidity search, claim construction, infringement analysis, and investigation of inequitable conduct. Invalidating patents and helping patent litigation defendants are Patent Hawk core competencies.

_


	this page: On the Defense Inequitable Conduct For the Defense email: info@ patenthawk.com Phone: 503.922.2433 (Portland)206.529.5146 (Seattle) *The Patent Prospector* (patent weblog)	On the Defense A company accused of patent infringement hires a law firm to defend them before the court. But the vast majority of patent cases settle out of court, before trial. That is because the merits of a case become clear, and one party backs down. The quicker those facts come to light, the lower the legal fees. The more compelling the evidence of invalidity or non-infringement, the lower the settlement figure. Patent Hawk economically assists attorneys representing defendants in litigation, and, beforehand - companies accused of infringement, where counsel prepares a clearing opinion; what is commonly termed a "conflict." Commonly, there are two ways to attack an infringement assertion: invalidity & non-infringement. To those ends, there are three aspects of patent defense: [1] prior art search to invalidate asserted patent claims; [2] claim construction to properly construe the meaning of claim terms, and hence the scope of claims; [3] infringement analysis: mapping claims to an accused product in light of the claim construction. Inequitable Conduct Another charge that sometimes may be leveled against a patentee is inequitable conduct. Typically, inequitable conduct takes the form of failing to disclose relevant prior art to the patent office (PTO) during prosecution of a patent. Finding inequitable conduct invalidates the entire patent. Establishing inequitable conduct requires proof by clear and convincing evidence that the misrepresentation made to the PTO was material, and that the patentee acted with intent to deceive the PTO. - Old Town Canoe v. Confluence Holdings (Fed. Cir. 2006) The two facets of inequitable conduct are the materiality of the withheld prior art, and intent to deceive. Case law precedent is that the more material the prior art is, the more that intent may be presumed, thus lessening the burden of proving intent, which is typically the sticking point of effecting an inequitable conduct charge. The more material the omission or the misrepresentation, the lower the level of intent required to establish inequitable conduct, and vice versa. - Critikon v. Becton Dickinson Vascular Access (Fed. Cir. 1997) For the Defense Patent Hawk helps those accused of infringement develop and invalidity position: prior art invalidity search, claim construction, infringement analysis, and investigation of inequitable conduct. Invalidating patents and helping patent litigation defendants are Patent Hawk core competencies.
	© 2008 Patent Hawk LLC	to top of page