37 C.F.R. § 1.555

Information material to patentability in ex parte reexamination and inter partes reexamination proceedings

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) A patent by its very nature is affected with a public interest. The public interest is best served, and the most effective reexamination occurs when, at the time a reexamination proceeding is being conducted, the Office is aware of and evaluates the teachings of all information material to patentability in a reexamination proceeding. Each individual associated with the patent owner in a reexamination proceeding has a duty of candor and good faith in dealing with the Office, which includes a duty to disclose to the Office all information known to that individual to be material to patentability in a reexamination proceeding. The individuals who have a duty to disclose to the Office all information known to them to be material to patentability in a reexamination proceeding are the patent owner, each attorney or agent who represents the patent owner, and every other individual who is substantively involved on behalf of the patent owner in a reexamination proceeding. The duty to disclose the information exists with respect to each claim pending in the reexamination proceeding until the claim is cancelled. Information material to the patentability of a cancelled claim need not be submitted if the information is not material to patentability of any claim remaining under consideration in the reexamination proceeding. The duty to disclose all information known to be material to patentability in a reexamination proceeding is deemed to be satisfied if all information known to be material to patentability of any claim in the patent after issuance of the reexamination certificate was cited by the Office or submitted to the Office in an information disclosure statement. However, the duties of candor, good faith, and disclosure have not been complied with if any fraud on the Office was practiced or attempted or the duty of disclosure was violated through bad faith or intentional misconduct by, or on behalf of, the patent owner in the reexamination proceeding. Any information disclosure statement must be filed with the items listed in § 1.98(a) as applied to individuals associated with the patent owner in a reexamination proceeding, should be filed within two months of the date of the order for reexamination, or as soon thereafter as possible, and be accompanied by any applicable information disclosure statement size fee under § 1.17(v).

(b) Under this section, information is material to patentability in a reexamination proceeding when it is not cumulative to information of record or being made of record in the reexamination proceeding, and

(1) It is a patent or printed publication that establishes, by itself or in combination with other patents or printed publications, a prima facie case of unpatentability of a claim; or

(2) It refutes, or is inconsistent with, a position the patent owner takes in:

(i) Opposing an argument of unpatentability relied on by the Office, or

(ii) Asserting an argument of patentability.

A prima facie case of unpatentability of a claim pending in a reexamination proceeding is established when the 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 consistent with the specification, and before any consideration is given to evidence which may be submitted in an attempt to establish a contrary conclusion of patentability.

(c) The responsibility for compliance with this section rests upon the individuals designated in paragraph (a) of this section and no evaluation will be made by the Office in the reexamination proceeding as to compliance with this section. If questions of compliance with this section are raised by the patent owner or the third party requester during a reexamination proceeding, they will be noted as unresolved questions in accordance with § 1.552(c).

[57 FR 2036, Jan. 17, 1992, as amended at 65 FR 76776, Dec. 7, 2000; 89 FR 92010, Nov. 20, 2024]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 17 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1989–2021 · leading case: Total Containment, Inc. v. Environ Prods., Inc., 921 F. Supp. 1355 (E.D. Pa. 1995).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Total Containment, Inc. v. Environ Prods., Inc., 921 F. Supp. 1355 (E.D. Pa. 1995). · cites it 6× “The language of 37 C.F.R. § 1.555 (b)(2) does not contain an explicit limitation to patents and printed publications.”

Molins Plc, & John Coventry Smith, Jr. v. Textron, Inc., Kearney & Trecker Corp., & Avco Corp., 48 F.3d 1172 (Fed. Cir. 1995). “The Duty of Candor owed by applicants to the PTO during reexamination is set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 1.555 . . The Fifth Edition of the MPEP was promulgated in August of 1983.”

Young v. Lumenis, Inc., 492 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2007). “” 37 C.F.R. § 1.555 (b)(2)(i). Hedlund’s deposition testimony falls squarely within this category because her explanation for the diagram refutes Plaintiffs position that the Fossum reference teaches a different incision than the incision in Claims 1 and 2 of the '579 patent.”

Environ Prods., Inc. v. Total Containment, Inc., 951 F. Supp. 57 (E.D. Pa. 1997). · cites it 5× “TCI maintains that Environ’s failure to convey to the PTO its interpretation of § 305 was a violation of Enviroris duty of disclosure under 37 C.F.R. § 1.555 (a). It is at this point that TCI’s allegation of inequitable conduct collapses.”

Ball Corp., Plaintiff-Appellant/cross-Appellee v. Xidex Corp. & Dysan Corp., Defendants-Appellees/cross-Appellants, 967 F.2d 1440 (10th Cir. 1992). · cites it 2× “56 (a) (1990); 37 C.F.R. § 1.555 (a); Precision Instrument Mfg.”

The Ohio Willow Wood Co. v. Alps South, LLC, 813 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016). “” 37 C.F.R. § 1.555 (a); see also 37 C.F.R.”

PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Corning Optical Commc'ns RF, LLC, 193 F. Supp. 3d 133 (N.D.N.Y. 2016). “) Sullivan was aware of his duty to disclose material information in the 194 and 940 reexaminations as required by 37 C.F.R. § 1.555 (b). (Defi’s SMF ¶ 76; PL’s SMF ¶ 76, Dkt.”

Jackson v. VTech Telecomm. Ltd., 289 F. Supp. 2d 969 (N.D. Ill. 2003). · cites it 2× “Then, relying on 37 C.F.R. § 1.555 , which governs the duty of disclosures during reexamination, and the MPEP, Jackson argues that the Patent Office would have rejected as improper any attempt to submit such information.”

Amgen, Inc. v. Ariad Pharm., Inc., 577 F. Supp. 2d 702 (D. Del. 2008). · cites it 2× “Also among the items submitted was Amgen's reply to ARIAD’s counterclaim filed in this action (item 26) that includes Amgen’s inequitable conduct allegations regarding Verma’s declaration and the Verma articles.”

Thermalloy Inc. v. Aavid Eng'g, Inc., 935 F. Supp. 55 (D.N.H. 1996). “Aavid has failed to adduce specific evidence to support its contention that Thermal-loy breached its duty of good faith in the reexamination proceedings, 37 C.F.R. § 1.555 (West 1984 & Supp.1995), or otherwise acted in bad faith.”

Golden Bridge Tech., Inc. v. Apple Inc., 937 F. Supp. 2d 490 (D. Del. 2013). “See 37 C.F.R. § 1.555 . . Defendants "do not dispute that the preamble .”

Greenwood v. Seiko Instruments & Elec., Ltd., 711 F. Supp. 30 (D.D.C. 1989). “The factual basis for this argument is that there are contradictions between Greenwood’s statements in the affidavit, between the affidavit and his deposition, and between the affidavits of Greenwood and his son.”

Show all 17 citing cases →

— 37 C.F.R. § 1.555(b) — 1 case

Total Containment, Inc. v. Environ Prods., Inc., 921 F. Supp. 1355 (E.D. Pa. 1995). “The language of 37 C.F.R. § 1.555 (b)(2) does not contain an explicit limitation to patents and printed publications.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.