Inequitable Conduct

273 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Moakley v. Smallwood
  826 So. 2d 221· Fla.· 2002-02-28 ·cited 209×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that trial courts possess inherent authority to assess attorneys' fees against an attorney for bad faith conduct during litigation, resolving a conflict among district courts of appeal. However, the Court quashed the lower court's award in this case
• Bitterman v. Anette Bitterman
  714 So. 2d 356· Fla.· 1998-03-26 ·cited 126×
  The Florida Supreme Court resolved a conflict between district courts regarding the retroactive application of 1993 amendments to Florida's probate code attorney's fee provisions. The court held that substantive rights to attorney's fees vest when representation begins, so new fe
• In re Multiponics v. Herpel
  622 F.2d 709· 5th Cir.· 1980-07-16 ·cited 107×
  The court held that the claims of director Carl Biehl against the bankrupt corporation should be equitably subordinated due to his inequitable conduct and the company's undercapitalization.
• Norton v. Curtiss
  433 F.2d 779· C.C.P.A.· 1970-11-12 ·cited 106×
  The court held that allegations of fraud on the Patent Office are ancillary to priority and thus reviewable, and that the Board of Patent Interferences did not err in finding no adequate basis for a fraud holding against Curtiss.
• E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Berkley & Co., Inc.
  620 F.2d 1247· 8th Cir.· 1980-02-13 ·cited 97×
  The court held that the trial court erred in submitting the utility issue to the jury and in admitting evidence of a French fishing line for obviousness, requiring a retrial on patent validity.
• J.P. Stevens & Co., Inc. v. LEX TEX Ltd., Inc.
  747 F.2d 1553· Fed. Cir.· 1984-11-09 ·cited 91×
  The court held that inequitable conduct occurred during the prosecution of the '912 patent, rendering the product claims at issue unenforceable.
• Atlas Powder Co. v. E.I. DU Pont de Nemours & Co. & Alamo Explosives Co., Inc.
  750 F.2d 1569· Fed. Cir.· 1984-12-27 ·cited 89×
  The court held that the patent claims for an emulsion blasting agent were not invalid for anticipation, obviousness, or lack of enablement, and were not procured by inequitable conduct, and that the defendant's products infringed the patent.
• Camichos v. Diana Stores Corp.
  157 Fla. 349· Fla.· 1946-04-30 ·cited 81×
  Lessees John and Geneva Camichos sought to enforce a renewal option in their commercial lease when the property was set to be demolished. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's dismissal, holding that the renewal clause was too indefinite to be enforceable and that
• Shatterproof Glass Corp. v. Libbey-Owens Ford Co. & Leybold-Heraeus GmbH
  758 F.2d 613· Fed. Cir.· 1985-03-29 ·cited 79×
  The court affirmed the denial of judgment n.o.v. and new trial, finding substantial evidence supported the jury's verdict on patent validity, infringement, and damages, and that the 'on sale' bar and inventorship issues were properly submitted to the jury.
• Reactive Metals & Alloys Corp. v. ESM
  769 F.2d 1578· Fed. Cir.· 1985-08-09 ·cited 74×
  The court should affirm the trial judge's finding of exceptional circumstances to award attorney fees and the decision to reopen discovery.
• In re Coordinated Pretrial Proceedings in Antibiotic Antitrust Actions. Pfizer, Inc. v. Int'l Rectifier Corp.
  538 F.2d 180· 8th Cir.· 1976-06-16 ·cited 71×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting partial summary judgment because genuine issues of material fact remained regarding Pfizer's alleged misconduct before the Patent Office and the court.
• Pursche v. Atlas Scraper & Eng'g Co.
  300 F.2d 467· 9th Cir.· 1961-12-12 ·cited 69×
  The court held that certain claims of the 090 patent were invalid for generality, but others were valid. Claims of the 786 and 284 patents were also found valid, and infringement was established for some Atlas plows.
• Kingsdown Med. Consultants, Ltd. v. Hollister Inc.
  863 F.2d 867· Fed. Cir.· 1988-12-21 ·cited 67×
  The court held that the district court's finding of deceitful intent was clearly erroneous, reversing the judgment of inequitable conduct.
• Parker v. Motorola, Inc.
  524 F.2d 518· 5th Cir.· 1975-12-08 ·cited 62×
  The court reversed the district court's finding of patent validity because the patent claims were obvious in light of the prior art, thus rendering the patent invalid.
• Milgo Elec. Corp. v. United Bus. Commc'ns, Inc.
  623 F.2d 645· 10th Cir.· 1980-05-29 ·cited 53×
  The court held that the Milgo patents were valid and infringed, and that the trial court did not err in its findings regarding patent validity, infringement, and the admissibility of evidence of copying.
• S.C. Johnson & SON, Inc. v. Carter-Wallace, Inc.
  781 F.2d 198· Fed. Cir.· 1986-01-08 ·cited 50×
  The court affirmed the district court's findings on patent validity and infringement but vacated and remanded the decisions on attorney fees and damages for clarification.
• Kolene Corp. v. Motor City Metal Treating, Inc.
  440 F.2d 77· 6th Cir.· 1971-03-09 ·cited 50×
  The court held that the patent was valid and infringed, and that there was no fraud or patent misuse.
• Karem Elena Romo v. Amedex Ins. Co.
  930 So. 2d 643· Fla. 3d DCA· 2006-02-22 ·cited 49×
  Karem Elena Romo appeals the dismissal of her second amended complaint against insurance companies and agents regarding coverage denial for her mother's liver transplant. The court reversed the dismissal, holding that the complaint adequately pleaded multiple causes of action inc
• Kloster Speedsteel AB v. Crucible Inc.
  793 F.2d 1565· Fed. Cir.· 1986-06-11 ·cited 49×
  The court affirmed the district court's findings of validity and infringement for claim 30 of the '518 patent and claim 4 of the '934 patent, but remanded for further proceedings regarding the scope of the injunction.
• Orthopedic Equip. Co., Inc. v. ALL Orthopedic Appliances, Inc.
  707 F.2d 1376· Fed. Cir.· 1983-05-23 ·cited 47×
  The court held that the patent claims were invalid for obviousness and affirmed the district court's findings regarding inequitable conduct and attorney fees.
• Plastic Container Corp. v. Cont'l Plastics OF Okla., Inc.
  607 F.2d 885· 10th Cir.· 1979-08-08 ·cited 46×
  The court held that Plastic Container Corporation was not collaterally estopped from asserting the validity of its reissue patent claims, and that the reissue patent was not invalid due to fraud on the PTO.
• Stevenson v. Int'l Trade Comm'n
  612 F.2d 546· C.C.P.A.· 1979-12-20 ·cited 41×
  The court held that the claims of the Stevenson patent for a kicktail skateboard were not obvious and therefore valid. The International Trade Commission's determination of no violation of section 337 was reversed.
• Cathal L. Kegel v. Runnels
  793 F.2d 924· 8th Cir.· 1986-06-13 ·cited 40×
  A release signed by a party relying on the erroneous opinion of the physician responsible for the injury is not binding if genuine issues of material fact exist regarding that reliance.
• Rohm & Haas Co. v. Crystal Chem. Co. & Joe C. Eller
  736 F.2d 688· Fed. Cir.· 1984-05-29 ·cited 38×
  The court held that attorney fees are not warranted on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 285, even though the patent was found invalid due to uncured fraud, because the patentee's conduct did not make it unjust for the prevailing party to bear its own fees on appeal.
• FMC Corp. v. The Manitowoc Co., Inc.
  835 F.2d 1411· Fed. Cir.· 1987-12-16 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the appellant failed to prove inequitable conduct, antitrust violations, or unfair competition, and thus the district court's judgment is affirmed.
• True Temper Corp. v. CF&I Steel Corp.
  601 F.2d 495· 10th Cir.· 1979-05-31 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the '690 patent was unenforceable due to inequitable conduct before the Patent Office, and affirmed the trial court's finding that the '198 patent was invalid for obviousness.
• Chicago Rawhide Mfg. Co. v. Crane Packing Co.
  523 F.2d 452· 7th Cir.· 1975-09-30 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the patent was invalid as obvious, and that the plaintiff failed to prove fraud or inequitable conduct by the defendant.
• Rolls-Royce Ltd. & Renishaw v. GTE Valeron Corp.
  800 F.2d 1101· Fed. Cir.· 1986-09-08 ·cited 35×
  The court affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that GTE failed to prove patent invalidity or unenforceability, infringed the asserted claims, and did not willfully infringe.
• In re Westgate-California Corp. v. Smith
  642 F.2d 1174· 9th Cir.· 1981-03-23 ·cited 34×
  The court held that while appellant's inequitable conduct was established by collateral estoppel, the specific breach of recordkeeping did not warrant subordination of all her claims because it was remedied by prior litigation and did not cause general prejudice to the bankruptcy
• Application of Leland C. Clark, Jr.
  522 F.2d 623· C.C.P.A.· 1975-09-25 ·cited 34×
  The court affirmed the board's rejection of the reissue application, finding that the changes made were insufficient to avoid the issue of unpatentability previously decided by the Fifth Circuit.
• Tech. Tape Corp. v. Minn. Mining & Mfg. Co.
  247 F.2d 343· 2d Cir.· 1957-08-02 ·cited 34×
  The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding the Drew II patent valid and infringed, and rejecting the plaintiff's claim of patent misuse.
• Goodall v. Whispering Woods Ctr., L.L.C.
  990 So. 2d 695· Fla. 4th DCA· 2008-09-24 ·cited 33×
  Michael Goodall, as assignee of MKJH, LLC, appealed the dismissal of his reformation claim against Whispering Woods Center for allegedly changing contracted 12-foot ceiling heights to 10-foot ceilings in a commercial real property purchase agreement. The Fourth District reversed
• Mabson v. Mabson
  104 Fla. 162· Fla.· 1932-02-02 ·cited 32×
  Kathleen Mabson appealed from dismissal of her bill of review challenging a divorce decree rendered against her in Florida on grounds of defective constructive service by publication. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed dismissal, holding that while strict statutory compliance wit
• Smith v. Royal Auto. Grp., Inc.
  675 So. 2d 144· Fla. 5th DCA· 1996-05-03 ·cited 31×
  Benjamin Smith appealed summary judgment orders dismissing his claims against Royal Automotive Group for breach of contract, misrepresentation, fraud, and rescission arising from Royal Group's alleged guaranty of monthly payments that ceased after a dealership sale. The appellate
• Trans-World Mfg. Corp. v. AL Nyman & Sons, Inc.
  750 F.2d 1552· Fed. Cir.· 1984-12-20 ·cited 31×
  The court held that the '497 patent was invalid due to obviousness, but the '099 patent was valid and infringed, overturning the jury's finding of invalidity for the latter.
• Great N. Corp. v. Davis Core & PAD Co., Inc.
  782 F.2d 159· Fed. Cir.· 1986-01-06 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the patent was valid and infringed, and that the infringement was willful, justifying treble damages and attorney fees.
• Cleo D. Mathis & Vico Prods. Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Spears
  857 F.2d 749· Fed. Cir.· 1988-09-06 ·cited 29×
  The court held that the imposition of sanctions on appeal was unwarranted, despite affirming the award of expert witness fees.
• Argus Chem. Corp. v. Fibre Glass-Evercoat Co., Inc.
  759 F.2d 10· Fed. Cir.· 1985-04-04 ·cited 29×
  Patents procured by inequitable conduct are unenforceable, even if the attorney acted in subjective good faith based on a misunderstanding of the law at the time.
• Allen Organ Co. v. Kimball Int'l, Inc.
  839 F.2d 1556· Fed. Cir.· 1988-02-12 ·cited 28×
  The court held that Allen Organ waived its objections to the jury instructions and interrogatories due to failure to raise them before the jury was discharged, and that the jury's answers were reconcilable, supporting the judgment of patent invalidity.
• Driscoll v. Cebalo
  731 F.2d 878· Fed. Cir.· 1984-04-06 ·cited 27×
  The court held that the party Cébalo violated his duty of disclosure to the Patent and Trademark Office by failing to disclose a material prior art reference, warranting reversal of the board's decision in one interference and affirmation in another.
• Columbia GAS & Elec. Corp. v. United States
  151 F.2d 461· 6th Cir.· 1945-10-09 ·cited 26×
  The court held that Columbia's acquisition of American Fuel securities was part of a conspiracy to restrain and monopolize trade, and thus the bankruptcy court could reject Columbia's claims.
• Security-First Nat. Bank of Los Angeles v. Rindge Land & Navigation Co.
  85 F.2d 557· 9th Cir.· 1936-08-17 ·cited 26×
  The court affirmed the district court's decree, holding that appellants, who acquired bonds through fraudulent manipulation and inequitable conduct during bankruptcy proceedings, forfeited their preferred status and their claim was limited to the actual amount paid for the bonds
• Smith Int'l, Inc. v. Hughes Tool Co.
  759 F.2d 1572· Fed. Cir.· 1985-04-30 ·cited 25×
  The court affirmed the denial of motions to dissolve the preliminary injunction and dismissed appeals challenging orders that barred evidence of fraud and denied summary judgment, based on the law of the case doctrine.
• Rohm & Haas Co. v. Crystal Chem. Co. & Joe C. Eller
  722 F.2d 1556· Fed. Cir.· 1983-12-07 ·cited 25×
• Scripps Clinic & Research Found. v. Genentech, Inc.
  927 F.2d 1565· Fed. Cir.· 1991-03-11 ·cited 24×
  The court held that summary judgment of unenforceability due to inequitable conduct was improper without a finding of intent to deceive, and that the reissue patent claims were not invalid for an inadequate reason for reissue. Summary judgment on inadequate specification support
• Newell Cos., Inc. v. Kenney Mfg. Co.
  864 F.2d 757· Fed. Cir.· 1988-12-29 ·cited 24×
  The panel majority's ruling that the question of unobviousness is subject to full and independent appellate review, disregarding jury verdicts, violates the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial.
• In re Innotron Diagnostics
  800 F.2d 1077· Fed. Cir.· 1986-08-27 ·cited 24×
  The Federal Circuit held that it has jurisdiction to entertain a petition for writ of mandamus concerning the separation of patent issues for trial, even when intertwined with antitrust claims, and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in ordering such separation.
• Akzo N.V. v. U.S. Int'l Trade Comm'n
  808 F.2d 1471· Fed. Cir.· 1986-12-22 ·cited 23×
  The Court of Appeals affirmed the International Trade Commission's exclusion order, finding that the Blades patent was valid and enforceable, and that Akzo's due process rights were not violated.
• Hahamovitch v. Hahamovitch
  133 So. 3d 1020· Fla. 4th DCA· 2014-01-08 ·cited 22×
  Wife appeals an amended final order addressing attorney's fees and costs in a dissolution case. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed the award of fees to the husband based on the wife's denial of requests for admission, but affirmed the award of fees to the husband as a s
• Carella v. Starlight Archery & PRO Line Co.
  804 F.2d 135· Fed. Cir.· 1986-10-22 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the '800 patent was infringed and not invalid, affirming the district court's judgment and award of lost profits.