Senniger Powers Attorney Janet Hendrickson Explains Recent Developments in Therasense Inc. (now Abbott) v. Becton, Dickinson and Co. (Fed. Cir. 2010)

On March 26, 2010, the Federal Circuit issued an order vacating the January 25, 2010 panel decision, granting Abbott’s request for rehearing en banc, and requesting briefing on six issues.

   1.  Should the materiality-intent-balancing framework for inequitable conduct be
        modified or replaced?
   2.  If so, how? In particular, should the standard be tied directly to fraud or unclean
         hands? See Precision Instrument Mfg. Co. v. Auto. Maint. Mach. Co., 324 U.S.
        806 (1945); Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238 (1944),
        overruled on other grounds by Standard Oil Co. v. United States, 429 U.S. 17
        (1976); Keystone Driller Co. v. Gen. Excavator Co., 290 U.S. 240 (1933). If so,
        what is the appropriate standard for fraud or unclean hands?
   3.  What is the proper standard for materiality? What role should the United States
        Patent and Trademark Office’s rules play in defining materiality? Should a
        finding of materiality require that but for the alleged misconduct, one or more
        claims would not have issued?
   4.  Under what circumstances is it proper to infer intent from materiality? See
         Kingsdown Med. Consultants, Ltd. v. Hollister Inc., 863 F.2d 867 (Fed. Cir. 1988)
        (en banc).
   5.  Should the balancing inquiry (balancing materiality and intent) be abandoned?
   6.  Whether the standards for materiality and intent in other federal agency contexts
        or at common law shed light on the appropriate standards to be applied in the
        patent context.