Failure to disclose the best mode defense prevails in LCD case

Posted on December 5, 2007 by Morris James LLP

Commissariat A L’Energie Atomique v. Samsung Electronics Co., et al., C.A. No. 03-484-MPT, October 31, 2007.

Thynge, M.J.   Defendant’s motion for summary judgment for failure to disclose the best mode is granted.


The disputed technology relates to the design and manufacture of LCDs and related productions.  A claim construction opinion issued on October 3, 2007.  The court finds clear and convincing evidence supporting Defendant’s claim that the inventors subjectively believed that the Sanritz R82.60 polarizer was the best mode for carrying out the claimed “means for polarizing the incident light” of the patent-in-suit.  The statements “we cannot say one polarizer is better than [another one]” and “[o]ur invention is to say there is no good or bad polarizer” do not create a material factual issue as to what the inventor considered the best mode.  The court finds that the inventors knew of the best mode and concealed it.  The opinion of Defendant’s expert Allan R. Kmetz addressing the insufficiency of the patent’s best mode is unrebutted.  The patent is invalid for failure to meet the best mode requirement.

A copy of the full opinion is available here.
Tags: ,
Trackbacks (0) Links to blogs that reference this article Trackback URL
http://depatentlaw.morrisjames.com/admin/trackback/126749
Comments (0) Read through and enter the discussion with the form at the end
Post A Comment / Question Use this form to add a comment to this entry.







Remember personal info?
Send To A Friend Use this form to send this entry to a friend via email.