Inequitable conduct: Shaw/Hamilton.....qu... for any patent attorney's

Mosaic ImmunoEngineering is a nanotechnology-based immunotherapy company developing therapeutics and vaccines to positively impact the lives of patients and their families.

Reply New Message

Prev Message Back To Forum Threaded View Next Message

d2006s

Rank: Vice President [?]

Points: 5220 [?]

Votes: 88 Score: 3.2 [?]

Your Vote:

Please Log In to Vote

Did you know? You can earn activity points by filling your profile with information about yourself (what city you live in, your favorite team, blogs etc.)

Inequitable conduct: Shaw/Hamilton.....qu... for any patent attorney's

in response to

Re: price action (or lack of)

Joda

posted on Oct 08, 2007 11:02AM

From what I can find, the inequitable conduct defense is typically used when "known" prior art is not revealed during the patent prosecution. Wasn't that what happened in the Forgent case?

Since Shaw and Hamilton apparently made comments about the 336 not working or abandoning the 336, that were NOT mentioned to the USPTO, can these comments be construed as "misrepresenting" to the USPTO and constitute fraud rendering the patents invalid?

Or are these comments mearly "opinions" of paid employees that can be easily explained AWAY?

Would appreciate hearing from any patent attorney's that may be lurking or any of the more knowledgeable on this board.

GLTA

d2006s

2 Recommendations

Reply New Message

Prev Message Back To Forum Threaded View Next Message

Please to post a reply