Court denies claims of unenforceability due to inequitable conduct
Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor International, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 04-1371-JJF, September 24, 2008.
Farnan, J. Court finds for plaintiff following bench trial on defendants’ claims of inequitable conduct.
Two separate juries returned verdicts in favor of plaintiffs on willful infringement and invalidity of the patents-in-suit. This is the Court’s opinion on unenforceability due to inequitable conduct following a bench trial. Defendants claim that the ‘075 is invalid because neither the inventor nor his attorney cited prior art to the PTO. Plaintiff argues that the art is not material and that it did not intend to deceive the PTO. The Court is not convinced that the clear and convincing showing to deceive was established. As to the ‘851 patent defendants’ contention that the named inventors committed inequitable conduct by deliberately withholding prior again fails. The Court finds that disclosure of the art would have been cumulative. Because the ‘366 is related to the ‘851 patent, the Court applies the same analysis. With respect to the ‘856 patent, defendant contends that the inventors withheld from the PTO their earlier publically disclosed ‘851 patent which defendant contends constitutes prior art. The Court again concludes that defendant failed to meet its burden to show that the ‘851 patent is prior art, noting that there is no evidence that the ‘851 patent was disclosed prior to the completion of the invention disclosure form for the ‘876 patent.
