Inequitable Conduct

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

• Becton Dickinson & Co. v. C.R. Bard, Inc.
  922 F.2d 792· Fed. Cir.· 1990-12-13 ·cited 10×
  The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment of noninfringement for claims 1-5, and held that the issues regarding the invalidity of claims 6 and 7 were waived by the appellant.
• Consol. Aluminum Corp. v. Foseco Int'l Ltd.
  910 F.2d 804· Fed. Cir.· 1990-07-19 ·cited 10×
  The court affirmed the district court's judgment holding the '917 patent unenforceable due to inequitable conduct and other related patents unenforceable under the unclean hands doctrine, and affirmed the invalidity of the '056 and '371 patents due to obviousness.
• Solarex Corp. & RCA Corp. v. Arco Solar, Inc.
  870 F.2d 642· Fed. Cir.· 1989-03-15 ·cited 10×
  The court affirmed the district court's denial of Arco's motion to compel discovery of a referee's identity, finding the need for confidentiality outweighed Arco's speculative claims.
• Nickson Indus., Inc. v. ROL Mfg. Co., Ltd.
  847 F.2d 795· Fed. Cir.· 1988-05-17 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court erred in limiting prejudgment interest without explanation and in failing to address the request for an injunction, requiring remand for reconsideration of these issues.
• Korody-Colyer Corp. v. Gen. Motors Corp.
  828 F.2d 1572· Fed. Cir.· 1987-09-18 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the plaintiff's antitrust claim was barred by the statute of limitations because the amended complaint did not relate back to the original complaint and none of the tolling arguments were persuasive.
• Pac. Furniture Mfg. Co. v. Preview Furniture Corp.
  800 F.2d 1111· Fed. Cir.· 1986-09-10 ·cited 10×
  The court affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that the patents were not invalid for obviousness or unenforceable due to inequitable conduct, and that the infringement was willful, justifying treble damages and attorney fees.
• The Laitram Corp. & Intralox, Inc. v. Cambridge Wire Cloth Co.
  785 F.2d 292· Fed. Cir.· 1986-03-03 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the magistrate did not err in finding the patents valid and infringed, but did err in denying prejudgment interest on the damages award.
• Burton Frasher and Kay Frasher v. Gilbert Robinson-Appellee. In the Matter of Frasher's Inc.
  458 F.2d 492· 9th Cir.· 1972-03-24 ·cited 10×
  The court held that claims of majority shareholders should not be subordinated to general creditors absent a showing of inequitable conduct.
• Eagle Iron Works v. McLanahan Corp.
  429 F.2d 1375· 3d Cir.· 1970-07-09 ·cited 10×
  The appellate court affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that the patent was valid and infringed. The court found that the patent was not obvious in light of the prior art and that a Certificate of Correction issued to the patentee was validly obtained and did not enla
• State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Swindoll
  54 So. 3d 548· Fla. 3d DCA· 2011-02-02 ·cited 9×
  State Farm appeals a sanctions order imposing attorney's fees for a mistrial caused by its expert witness Dr. Wender's courtroom misconduct. The court reverses, holding that sanctions against State Farm require a finding of bad faith or egregious conduct by the party or its couns
• Levenger Co. v. Feldman
  516 F. Supp. 2d 1272· S.D. Fla.· 2007-09-21 ·cited 8×
  Levenger Company sought declarations of patent invalidity and unenforceability against patents held by Jack and Shirley Feldman relating to disk-bound notebooks, and claimed trade dress infringement and misappropriation of trade secrets. The Feldmans counterclaimed for patent inf
• Bankers Tr. Co. v. Edwards
  849 So. 2d 1160· Fla. 1st DCA· 2003-07-21 ·cited 8×
  The First District Court of Appeal of Florida reversed a trial court's order that canceled a foreclosure sale and effectively extinguished a lender's security interest. The appellate court held that the lender was entitled to proceed with the sale to satisfy the foreclosure judgm
• In re Baker & Getty Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Carl D. Rafoth for Baker & Getty Fin. Servs., Inc.
  974 F.2d 712· 6th Cir.· 1992-09-02 ·cited 8×
  The court held that Cordek was a principal maker of the note, not an accommodation maker, and affirmed that the Bank's claim should not be equitably subordinated. The court also affirmed the recovery of preferential transfers, holding that the preference period is calculated from
• Tol-O-Matic, Inc. v. Proma Produkt-Und Mktg. Gesellschaft m.b.H. & Norgren Co.
  945 F.2d 1546· Fed. Cir.· 1991-09-26 ·cited 8×
  The court affirmed the non-infringement finding for claims 25-31, reversed the invalidity finding for lack of utility, and reversed the finding of inequitable conduct.
• Halliburton Co. v. Schlumberger Tech. Corp.
  925 F.2d 1435· Fed. Cir.· 1991-02-13 ·cited 8×
  The court held that Halliburton did not engage in inequitable conduct by failing to disclose certain prior art references to the PTO because the withheld references were cumulative or less material than those already considered, and there was no intent to mislead.
• Micro Motion v. Kane Steel Co., Inc.
  894 F.2d 1318· Fed. Cir.· 1990-01-24 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a patent owner seeking discovery from a nonparty competitor for damages must demonstrate relevance and need, and a protective order does not obviate these requirements. The court reversed the denial of the motion to quash in its entirety.
• Lummus Indus., Inc. v. D.M. & E. Corp.
  862 F.2d 267· Fed. Cir.· 1988-11-23 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the jury instructions on patent infringement, specifically the distinction between repair and reconstruction, were adequate and that the verdict of infringement was supported by substantial evidence. The court also vacated the denial of prejudgment interest, r
• Demaco Corp. v. F. VON Langsdorff Licensing Ltd. & F. Von Langsdorff Bauverfahren GmbH
  851 F.2d 1387· Fed. Cir.· 1988-06-21 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the patent claims were not invalid for obviousness and the patent was not unenforceable due to inequitable conduct, reversing the district court's findings.
• Burlington Indus., Inc. v. Dayco Corp.
  849 F.2d 1418· Fed. Cir.· 1988-06-14 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the patent was not unenforceable for inequitable conduct because the evidence did not show an intent to deceive the Patent Office, only ambiguous language and potential confusion.
• N.V. Akzo v. E.I. Dupont de Nemours
  810 F.2d 1148· Fed. Cir.· 1987-02-05 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the patent was invalid due to obviousness and that there was no inequitable conduct, affirming the district court's decision.
• A.B. Dick Co. v. Burroughs Corp.
  798 F.2d 1392· Fed. Cir.· 1986-08-18 ·cited 8×
  The court affirmed the district court's decision that the patent is unenforceable due to inequitable conduct, finding sufficient evidence of materiality and intent to deceive the Patent Office.
• McDERMOTT v. United States
  760 F.2d 879· 8th Cir.· 1985-04-29 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the appellant failed to prove mutual mistake or unilateral mistake induced by inequitable conduct, and also failed to demonstrate affirmative misconduct by the government required for equitable estoppel.
• In re Mark Indus.
  751 F.2d 1219· Fed. Cir.· 1984-12-21 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by voiding the statutory presumption of patent validity and limiting damages based on a clearly erroneous finding of inequitable conduct.
• Bristol Locknut Co. v. SPS Techs., Inc.
  677 F.2d 1277· 9th Cir.· 1982-05-24 ·cited 8×
  A licensee remains obligated to pay royalties that accrued before challenging patent validity, and underreported royalties must be paid, but a licensee is not entitled to a refund of royalties paid prior to challenging the patent's validity.
• Reiter v. Universal Marion Corp.
  299 F.2d 449· D.C. Cir.· 1962-01-25 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the District Court correctly dismissed the stockholders' derivative action, as the prior New York judgment approving a settlement was res judicata and entitled to full faith and credit.
• Hawkins v. Fradkin
  178 F.2d 705· D.C. Cir.· 1949-09-26 ·cited 8×
  A court of equity can reform a deed when it fails to express the parties' true intent due to mistake, even if the mistake is unilateral, provided there is inequitable conduct by the other party.
• White v. Fort Myers Beach Fire Control Dist.
  302 So. 3d 1064· Fla. 2d DCA· 2020-09-04 ·cited 7×
  Darren White, a fire chief employed by Fort Myers Beach Fire Control District, appeals a summary judgment in favor of the District on his claims for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, reformation, and negligent misrepresentation. Th
• Myrick v. Myrick
  214 So. 3d 769· Fla. 2d DCA· 2017-03-24 ·cited 7×
  Jennifer Myrick appealed a trial court order denying her attorney fees and requiring her to pay nearly all of her ex-husband's attorney fees ($96,326.24) in a post-dissolution child custody modification proceeding. The Florida appellate court affirmed the denial of the former wif
• Alayna Rogers v. Wiggins
  198 So. 3d 1119· Fla. 2d DCA· 2016-08-24 ·cited 7×
  In this family law case, the Florida District Court of Appeal reversed a trial court's award of attorney's fees to the father in a child custody modification dispute. The court held that while a trial court may consider a party's litigation conduct when awarding fees under sectio
• In re Hayes Microcomputer Prods. v. Hayes Microcomputer Prods., Inc.
  982 F.2d 1527· Fed. Cir.· 1992-12-23 ·cited 7×
  The court affirmed the jury's verdict, holding that the patent adequately disclosed the invention under 35 U.S.C. § 112's written description and best mode requirements, and that substantial evidence supported the findings of validity and infringement.
• Labounty Mfg., Inc. v. United States Int'l Trade Comm'n
  958 F.2d 1066· Fed. Cir.· 1992-03-12 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the patent was unenforceable due to inequitable conduct because the applicant intentionally withheld material prior art from the PTO.
• Amgen, Inc. v. Chugai Pharm. Co., Ltd.
  927 F.2d 1200· Fed. Cir.· 1991-03-05 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the district court did not err in its findings regarding prior invention and obviousness of the '008 patent, but reversed the finding that claims 1 and 3 of the '195 patent were enabled.
• Env't Instruments, Inc. v. The Sutron Corp.
  877 F.2d 1561· Fed. Cir.· 1989-06-15 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the accused sensors did not literally infringe the '819 patent and that amendments during prosecution estopped the patentee from asserting infringement by equivalents. The court also found the '481 patent invalid for obviousness based on a combination of prior
• Everpure, Inc. v. Cuno, Inc.
  875 F.2d 300· Fed. Cir.· 1989-05-17 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the replacement of an adapter, which contains multiple non-worn and non-broken components of a patented filter assembly, constitutes impermissible reconstruction rather than permissible repair.
• Dep't OF Transp. v. Ronlee, Inc.
  518 So. 2d 1326· Fla. 3d DCA· 1987-12-22 ·cited 7×
  A contractor may not obtain reformation of a public construction contract based on unilateral bidding error, even where the corrected price remains below the second-lowest bid. Reformation is unavailable because unilateral mistake is not relievable in equity absent fraudulent or
• Mills v. Hamm
  102 F.4th 1245· 11th Cir.· 2024-05-28 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the inmate failed to establish a substantial likelihood of success on the merits or that the equities favored a stay of execution, and therefore denied the motion for a stay.
• Medtronic Xomed, Inc. v. Gyrus Ent LLC
  440 F. Supp. 2d 1300· M.D. Fla.· 2006-08-01 ·cited 6×
  The court denied summary judgment on claims of direct, contributory, and induced infringement, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding whether the defendant's surgical instruments infringe the patent and whether the defendant induced infringement.
• Goodwall Constr. Co. & Howard P. Gooden v. Beers Constr. Co.
  991 F.2d 751· Fed. Cir.· 1993-04-12 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed the district court's judgment of willful infringement and award of damages, but remanded for recalculation of post-judgment interest.
• Morton Int'l, Inc. v. Cardinal Chem. Co.
  959 F.2d 948· Fed. Cir.· 1992-03-20 ·cited 6×
  The court held that it should review the invalidity judgment first when appropriate, and that in this case, the patent claims were invalid for lack of enablement and indefiniteness.
• Engel Indus., Inc. v. The Lockformer Co.
  946 F.2d 1528· Fed. Cir.· 1991-10-08 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the patent was not invalid for failure to disclose the best mode or for inequitable conduct, as there was no evidence of concealment of a preferred mode at the time of filing.
• Greenwood v. Hattori Seiko Co., Ltd.
  900 F.2d 238· Fed. Cir.· 1990-04-03 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court erred by improperly reviewing the PTO's reexamination proceeding and by failing to conduct a proper Graham analysis for obviousness. It also held that inequitable conduct requires a finding of intent to deceive, which was absent.
• In re Clark Pipe & Supply Co., Inc. v. Assocs. Commercial Corp.
  893 F.2d 693· 5th Cir.· 1990-01-24 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the bankruptcy court erred in valuing inventory from the debtor's perspective and that the lender's actions, while severe, did not constitute inequitable conduct justifying equitable subordination.
• Jaskiewicz v. Mossinghoff
  822 F.2d 1053· Fed. Cir.· 1987-06-19 ·cited 6×
  The court held that there was insufficient evidence to sustain findings of fraud and deliberate intent to mislead for Counts One and Three, but sufficient evidence for Count Two. The court reversed the findings for Counts One and Three, upheld Count Two, and remanded for reconsid
• Chaparral Commc'ns, Inc. v. Boman Indus., Inc.
  798 F.2d 456· Fed. Cir.· 1986-07-28 ·cited 6×
  The court held that an appeal from a partial summary judgment is not immediately appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) unless the district court was alerted that its ruling would have the practical effect of denying injunctive relief and that such denial would cause serious, ir
• Anderson v. Farmers Nat'l Bank OF Cordell
  624 F.2d 105· 10th Cir.· 1980-05-28 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a bank may stop payment on a cashier's check when the payee, dealing directly with the bank, fraudulently induced its issuance by misrepresenting the extent of the debt owed. The court also affirmed the reformation of a subordination agreement based on the ban
• Becton v. Sherwood Med. Indus. Inc.
  516 F.2d 514· 5th Cir.· 1975-07-28 ·cited 6×
  The court held that Patent No. 3,494,352 (Russo-Halligan) is invalid due to improper joinder of an inventor, and Patent No. 3,469,572 (Nehring) is invalid as obvious in light of prior art. The antitrust claim was reversed.
• Law Offs. of Scott Alan Orth, P.A. v. In re Est. of Mario Quintero
  374 So. 3d 67· Fla. 3d DCA· 2024-09-11 ·cited 5×
  In this fourth appeal of a probate dispute, the Third District Court of Appeal upheld the trial court's sanctions against attorneys for the law office and individuals for repeated attempts to probate a lost will after prior adverse rulings, finding no abuse of discretion in award
• Spliethoff Bevrachtingskantoor B.V. v. United Yacht Transp. LLC
  842 F. Supp. 2d 1356· S.D. Fla.· 2022-11-17 ·cited 5×
  The court held that res judicata did not bar the claims and that UYT's counterclaim for cancellation failed because Dockwise LLC's use of the mark in 2012 established priority rights that transferred to Spliethoff.
• Alvarez v. Sander Andres Salazar
  338 So. 3d 267· Fla. 4th DCA· 2022-02-09 ·cited 5×
  The appellate court reversed a trial court's award of attorney's fees to the former husband and reversed a child support calculation error. The court found the trial court failed to make proper findings for attorney's fees based on vexatious litigation and miscalculated child sup
• Hicks v. Hicks
  284 So. 3d 576· Fla. 4th DCA· 2019-11-20 ·cited 5×
  An award of attorney's fees as a sanction for bad faith conduct requires express findings of bad faith, a direct causal link between the bad faith conduct and the fees incurred, and evidence supporting the reasonable hours and hourly rate. Incarceration for civil contempt require