Patent Fraud Prosecutions In Usa
Patent Fraud Prosecutions in the USA
What is Patent Fraud?
Patent fraud typically refers to:
Fraud on the USPTO: Knowingly submitting false information, withholding material information, or misrepresenting facts during patent prosecution to secure or maintain a patent.
Inequitable Conduct: When an applicant intentionally deceives the USPTO by withholding prior art or making false statements.
Fraudulent Enforcement: Enforcing patents obtained through fraudulent means.
False Marking: Marking products with patents that do not exist or are expired to deceive the public or competitors.
Patent fraud can lead to:
Invalidating the patent.
Civil lawsuits for damages.
Possible criminal prosecution under statutes like 18 U.S.C. § 1001 (false statements) or mail/wire fraud statutes.
Relevant Legal Framework:
Inequitable Conduct Doctrine: A key defense in patent litigation which can render a patent unenforceable if fraud on the USPTO is proven.
18 U.S.C. § 1001: Criminalizes knowingly making false statements to the federal government.
False Marking Statute (35 U.S.C. § 292): Imposes penalties for marking products with false patent information.
Key Case Law Examples in Patent Fraud
Case 1: Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson and Co. (Fed. Cir., 2011)
Facts: The court reviewed whether certain non-disclosures of prior art constituted inequitable conduct.
Legal Issue: Established a high standard for proving inequitable conduct—requires clear and convincing evidence of intent to deceive and materiality.
Outcome: The Federal Circuit tightened the requirements for finding patent fraud, making it harder to invalidate patents on fraud grounds.
Significance: This case is the leading precedent on the standard for inequitable conduct, emphasizing that not all nondisclosures or errors rise to fraud.
Case 2: United States v. Jain (E.D. Texas, 2012)
Facts: Dr. Anil Jain was a former USPTO patent examiner who took bribes to provide confidential information about patent applications.
Charges: Criminal conspiracy, theft of trade secrets, and fraud.
Outcome: Jain was convicted and sentenced to prison.
Significance: One of the rare criminal prosecutions involving corruption and fraud at the USPTO itself.
Case 3: Central Admixture Pharmacy Services, Inc. v. Advanced Cardiac Solutions, P.C. (Fed. Cir., 2012)
Facts: Defendant accused of inequitable conduct for withholding material prior art.
Legal Issue: Court applied Therasense standard, found insufficient evidence of intent to deceive.
Outcome: Patent held enforceable.
Significance: Reinforced that intent to deceive must be proven, not just negligence or oversight.
Case 4: The Lanham Act False Marking Case — Forest Group, Inc. v. Bon Tool Co. (Fed. Cir., 2011)
Facts: Bon Tool was accused of falsely marking products with expired or invalid patents.
Legal Issue: Enforcement of false marking statute under 35 U.S.C. § 292.
Outcome: The court held that to have standing to sue, the plaintiff must show competitive injury (injury in fact).
Significance: Limited “false marking” qui tam lawsuits by requiring proof of actual harm.
Case 5: United States v. Mentor Graphics Corp. (2005)
Facts: Mentor Graphics was accused of making false statements in applications to obtain patents.
Charges: Violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1001 (false statements).
Outcome: The case was settled with penalties and changes in compliance procedures.
Significance: Demonstrated government willingness to pursue criminal charges for false statements during patent prosecution.
Case 6: Nilssen v. Osram Sylvania, Inc. (Fed. Cir., 2007)
Facts: Alleged fraud and inequitable conduct based on nondisclosure of material prior art.
Outcome: Court affirmed no fraud, emphasizing that mere nondisclosure is not fraud unless intent to deceive is proven.
Significance: Emphasizes the high burden of proof in patent fraud cases.
Case 7: United States v. Garrison (2013)
Facts: Garrison submitted false affidavits during patent litigation to enforce patents fraudulently.
Charges: Mail fraud and making false statements.
Outcome: Convicted and sentenced to prison.
Significance: Shows criminal consequences for fraudulent patent enforcement.
Legal Takeaways
Inequitable conduct requires clear evidence of intentional deception; mere negligence isn’t enough.
Criminal prosecution for patent fraud is rare but can occur, especially when fraud involves false statements to federal officials or corruption.
False marking suits have been limited by courts to prevent abusive litigation.
Courts aim to balance deterring fraud with not undermining genuine mistakes or oversights.
Companies should maintain strong patent prosecution and enforcement compliance programs.
Summary
Patent fraud prosecutions in the U.S. often focus on intentional misrepresentation or concealment of material facts during patent prosecution or enforcement. The courts have developed stringent standards to separate bad faith fraud from mere error. Criminal cases are less frequent but demonstrate serious consequences for those who knowingly deceive the USPTO or courts.
RELATED Blog
0 comments