Motion to strike inequitable conduct defenses succeeds only in part
Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor International, Inc., et al., Civ. No. 08-309-JJF-LPS, December 18, 2009.
Stark, M.J. Magistrate recommends granting in part and denying in part Defendants’ motion to strike defenses and counterclaims of inequitable conduct and patent misuse.
The technology involved in this declaratory judgment action relates to power converters. The motion to strike inequitable conduct and patent misuse defenses was fully briefed on October 22, 2009. The Magistrate agrees to a limited extent that plaintiff has failed to meet the heightened pleading standard required by Rule 9(b) and Exergen. He finds that at this stage of the pleadings it is reasonable to infer that one person accused of inequitable conduct knew of the materiality of prior art references and failed to disclose them with deceptive intent. With respect to two other individuals, one was not alleged to have been involved in the prosecution, and there are no facts alleged as to the other to show he was aware that statements made to the PTO were false or misleading. The Magistrate thus recommends granting the motion to strike with respect to the latter two individuals, but not as to the first. He further rejects the argument that the inequitable conduct alleged has infected the enforceability of two other patents and recommends granting the motion to strike as to the two other patents. The counterclaims which the magistrate has deemed adequately plead further satisfy the requirements of Rule 12(b)(6) and state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
