Inequitable Conduct

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

• COX v. Great Am. Ins. Co.
  88 So. 3d 1048· Fla. 4th DCA· 2012-05-30 ·cited 5×
  The court held that an award of attorney's fees under Rule 1.730(c) must be supported by detailed factual findings and that fees incurred in litigating the amount of the fee award are not recoverable under this rule.
• Trista Elan Robinson-Wilson v. Preston J.R. Wilson, IV
  932 So. 2d 330· Fla. 4th DCA· 2006-02-08 ·cited 5×
  Former wife Robinson-Wilson was held in contempt for repeatedly interfering with the former husband's visitation rights with their daughter. The court awarded the former husband attorney's fees and costs, which the appellate court affirmed on both statutory and equitable grounds.
• Minn. Mining & Mfg. Co. v. Johnson & Johnson Orthopaedics, Inc.
  976 F.2d 1559· Fed. Cir.· 1992-09-30 ·cited 5×
  The court affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that Johnson & Johnson Orthopaedics (JJO) infringed upon valid patents related to orthopedic casting tapes and that the findings of the Special Master were not clearly erroneous.
• Merck & Co., Inc. v. Danbury Pharmacal, Inc.
  873 F.2d 1418· Fed. Cir.· 1989-05-02 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding the patent unenforceable due to inequitable conduct, affirming the judgment.
• Suarez v. THE Bank of NEW York Mellon Tr. Co.
  325 So. 3d 205· Fla. 2d DCA· 2021-07-07 ·cited 4×
  This case concerns a dispute over attorney's fees in a foreclosure action. The appellate court affirmed the denial of fees to the defendants (Suarez and National Packaging) because they failed to plead entitlement to fees, but reversed the denial of fees to the plaintiff (Bank of
• Pub. Health Tr. OF Miami-Dade Cnty. v. Janneral Denson and Jordan Taylor
  189 So. 3d 1013· Fla. 3d DCA· 2016-04-13 ·cited 4×
  The court held that while sanctions for witness misconduct were proper, the award of attorney's fees must directly relate to the misconduct and cannot compensate for preparation for subsequent trials unrelated to the misconduct.
• Korte v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n for Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates Series 2006-WFH3
  64 So. 3d 134· Fla. 4th DCA· 2011-06-08 ·cited 4×
  An attorney who filed frivolous affirmative defenses in a mortgage foreclosure action without consulting his clients or verifying the defenses was sanctioned under Florida Statute section 57.105 for asserting baseless defenses primarily for the purpose of unreasonable delay. The
• Erwin Rosenberg v. Maged Gaballa and Amani Gaballa
  1 So. 3d 1149· Fla. 4th DCA· 2009-01-21 ·cited 4×
  The appellate court affirmed the trial court's award of attorney's fees against counsel, finding that the attorney engaged in bad faith conduct.
• Sensormatic Elecs. Corp. v. Tag Co. US, LLC
  632 F. Supp. 2d 1147· S.D. Fla.· 2008-12-19 ·cited 4×
  The court found that the defendants failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the asserted patent claims were inherently anticipated or barred by prior sale. The court also found that the defendants stipulated to infringement.
• In re Burden v. The United States
  917 F.2d 115· 3d Cir.· 1990-10-26 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court decision automatically subordinating nonpecuniary loss tax penalties must be reversed and remanded for a hearing. However, the dissenting judge argues that equitable subordination requires proof of inequitable conduct by the government.
• Moxness Prods., Inc. v. Xomed, Inc.
  891 F.2d 890· Fed. Cir.· 1989-12-06 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) for on-sale activity and public use, as it improperly weighed the evidence. However, the conditional grant of a new trial was not an abuse of discretion.
• FMC Corp. & Vulcan Equip. Co., Ltd. v. Hennessy Indus., Inc.
  836 F.2d 521· Fed. Cir.· 1987-12-30 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court did not err in finding the Tabordon patent invalid and the Strang and Wood patents not infringed, but vacated the judgment regarding inequitable conduct for the Wood patent and remanded for further findings.
• Hughes Aircraft Co. v. The United States
  640 F.2d 1193· Ct. Cl.· 1980-12-17 ·cited 4×
  The patent is not invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) because the claims of the patent cover only the orbiting satellite and not the ground control device, which is a separate apparatus required for operation.
• Nelson v. Bowler
  626 F.2d 853· C.C.P.A.· 1980-07-31 ·cited 4×
  The court held that evidence of pharmacological activity from reasonably indicative tests is sufficient to establish practical utility for patent purposes, even if not confirming a specific therapeutic use.
• Hilborn v. Dann
  546 F.2d 401· C.C.P.A.· 1976-12-09 ·cited 4×
  The court held that mandamus will not lie to control the exercise of discretion, and the patentability of the interference count is the threshold issue, not the allegation of fraud.
• Moog Inc. v. Pegasus Labs., Inc.
  521 F.2d 501· 6th Cir.· 1975-09-05 ·cited 4×
  A supplemental agreement modifying a patent interference settlement, which eliminates sublicensing rights and has antitrust implications, must be filed with the Patent Office before the termination of the interference to avoid rendering the patent permanently unenforceable under
• Rube Robinson v. The Home Indem. Co.
  438 F.2d 1273· 8th Cir.· 1971-03-05 ·cited 4×
  The court held that substantial evidence supported the trial court's finding of mutual mistake in reforming the insurance policy to provide coverage for farm machinery moving on public highways.
• Hutcheson v. Frito-Lay, Inc.
  315 F.2d 818· 8th Cir.· 1963-04-17 ·cited 4×
  The court held that summary judgment was proper for the husband's claim but that there was a genuine issue of material fact regarding consideration for the wife's release.
• The Coca-Cola Co. v. Victor Syrup Corp.
  218 F.2d 596· C.C.P.A.· 1954-12-21 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the applicant's use of 'Nutri-Cola' was not confusingly similar to the opposer's 'Coca-Cola' mark, and the evidence did not sufficiently prove inequitable conduct or unfair competition to deny registration.
• Johnson v. Morris
  175 F.2d 65· 10th Cir.· 1949-05-06 ·cited 4×
  A creditor's equitable lien on a bankrupt's assets is determined by state law, and the bankruptcy court cannot create such a lien if it did not exist under state law. The claimant must prove augmentation of the bankrupt's estate to establish a lien.
• Benas v. Maher
  128 F.2d 247· 8th Cir.· 1942-05-19 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a tax sale conducted without adhering to the procedural requirements of the applicable 1939 Missouri statute was void, and that the purchaser's inequitable conduct barred equitable relief.
• In re Kalb. Feuerstein v. Kalb
  127 F.2d 509· 7th Cir.· 1942-04-20 ·cited 4×
  A farmer-debtor may file successive petitions under Section 75 of the Bankruptcy Act, and the court's denial of a motion to strike property from schedules was proper.
• Markel Am. Ins. Co. v. Baker
  152 So. 3d 86· Fla. 5th DCA· 2014-11-21 ·cited 3×
  Markel American Insurance Company sought certiorari review of a trial court's denial of its motion for protective order, which would have prevented depositions of its lead counsel and company representative. The appellate court held that filing a reformation action and making sta
• Bone & Joint Treatment Ctrs. OF Am. v. Healthtronics Surgical Servs., Inc.
  114 So. 3d 363· Fla. 3d DCA· 2013-05-22 ·cited 3×
  Bone & Joint Treatment Centers of America sought equitable reformation of a multi-party agreement to add HealthTronics to a tag-along provision, arguing either mutual mistake or unilateral mistake with inequitable conduct. The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed the trial c
• Jillian Nedd and Kelvin Nedd v. Gary
  35 So. 3d 1028· Fla. 4th DCA· 2010-06-02 ·cited 3×
  A trial court cannot award attorney's fees without a statutory or contractual basis, and the inequitable conduct doctrine requires egregious bad faith, which was not present here.
• Paragon Podiatry Lab., Inc. v. KLM Labs., Inc.
  984 F.2d 1182· Fed. Cir.· 1993-01-26 ·cited 3×
  The court held that sales of a patented device more than one year before the patent application filing date, without informing customers of experimental use, render the patent invalid under the on-sale bar, and that submitting deceptive affidavits to the PTO constitutes inequitab
• FOX Indus., Inc. v. Structural Pres. Sys., Inc.
  922 F.2d 801· Fed. Cir.· 1990-12-19 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the patent was unenforceable due to inequitable conduct, and the award of attorney fees was proper.
• In re Lemco Gypsum, Inc. v. L.E. Miller, Jr.
  911 F.2d 1553· 11th Cir.· 1990-09-18 ·cited 3×
  The court should have subordinated the Millers' bond claim because their actions as insiders were inequitable and conferred an unfair advantage.
• Shamrock Techs., Inc. v. Med. Sterilization, Inc.
  903 F.2d 789· Fed. Cir.· 1990-05-04 ·cited 3×
  The court held that assignor estoppel precludes an inventor and those in privity with him from challenging the validity of an assigned patent, and that the facts supported summary judgment of infringement.
• Hemstreet v. Spiegel, Inc.
  851 F.2d 348· Fed. Cir.· 1988-07-07 ·cited 3×
  A party that voluntarily settles a patent infringement suit and agrees to make royalty payments notwithstanding future findings of patent invalidity or unenforceability cannot later avoid those payments based on such findings.
• BB Inlet Prop., LLC v. 920 N. Stanley P'rs, LLC
  293 So. 3d 538· Fla. 4th DCA· 2020-03-11 ·cited 2×
  An upland owner has a common law littoral right to construct and maintain a dock extending onto privately-owned submerged land when the dock is necessary to access navigable waters and complies with applicable municipal regulations enacted under the Public Trust Doctrine. The sub
• Sidlosca v. Olympus Ins. Co.
  44 Fla. L. Weekly D1230· Fla. 3d DCA· 2019-07-24 ·cited 2×
  The appellate court reversed a trial court's award of attorney's fees and costs to an insurer. The court held that a motion for sanctions filed after a voluntary dismissal is invalid because the trial court loses jurisdiction to consider such motions once a case is voluntarily di
• Almazan v. In re Est. of Alberto Aguilera-Valdez
  273 So. 3d 9· Fla. 4th DCA· 2019-05-08 ·cited 2×
  The court addressed whether a trial court has inherent authority to impose sanctions sua sponte after a voluntary dismissal has been entered. The court held that a trial court's inherent authority to award attorney's fees as sanctions does not extend beyond a voluntary dismissal,
• Reva Shayne Greene v. Hunter Greene
  242 So. 3d 526· Fla. 1st DCA· 2018-04-18 ·cited 2×
  A trial court abuses its discretion when awarding attorney's fees under the inequitable conduct doctrine without making express findings of bad faith conduct supported by detailed factual findings describing the specific acts of bad faith that resulted in unnecessary attorney's f
• Ochalek v. Rivera
  232 So. 3d 1050· Fla. 4th DCA· 2017-12-20 ·cited 2×
  An attorney appeals a sanctions order imposing $600 in attorney's fees against him for alleged interference in a family law case after his withdrawal from representation. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed, finding the trial court failed to make the requisite bad faith
• Sexton v. Ferguson
  79 So. 3d 51· Fla. 4th DCA· 2011-11-16 ·cited 2×
  The court held that section 57.105(1), Florida Statutes, does not authorize an award of attorney's fees solely against a party's attorney when the case against the attorney's client has been voluntarily dismissed and the claim for fees against the client has been waived. The stat
• Harris Corp. v. Fed. Express Corp.
  670 F. Supp. 2d 1306· M.D. Fla.· 2009-08-26 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a qualified covenant not to sue, coupled with the patentee's retention of rights related to inequitable conduct and the substantial similarity between asserted and unasserted patents, was insufficient to divest the court of subject matter jurisdiction over the
• Fla. Dep't OF Revenue v. Lucignani
  775 So. 2d 996· Fla. 3d DCA· 2000-12-13 ·cited 2×
  The Florida Department of Revenue appealed a trial court's award of attorney's fees against it and the mother in a child support arrearage case. The appellate court reversed, holding that the trial court improperly awarded fees for work performed in a dismissed contempt action wh
• Abbott Labs. v. Brennan
  952 F.2d 1346· Fed. Cir.· 1991-12-27 ·cited 2×
  The court affirmed the denial of Rule 11 sanctions, the exclusion of certain evidence and expert testimony, and the dismissal of the antitrust counterclaim. It also affirmed the jury's verdict on tortious interference and abuse of process, subject to further review of specific da
• Action Orthopedics, Inc. v. Techmedica, Inc.
  759 F. Supp. 1566· M.D. Fla.· 1991-03-11 ·cited 2×
  The court held that attorney fees awarded under Florida common law for inequitable conduct are considered 'costs' and thus cannot be included in the amount in controversy for diversity jurisdiction. However, the court found that the plaintiff's tort claim, involving additional de
• Tex. Instruments Inc. v. United States Int'l Trade Comm'n
  851 F.2d 342· Fed. Cir.· 1988-07-06 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the appeal concerning the unenforceability of the '543 patent due to inequitable conduct was moot because the patent had expired, rendering the ITC's potential remedies inapplicable.
• Andrew Corp. v. Gabriel Elecs., Inc.
  847 F.2d 819· Fed. Cir.· 1988-05-25 ·cited 2×
  The court held that patent claims using terms of degree are not necessarily indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112 if they reasonably apprise those skilled in the art, and that a patentee is not required to claim only up to the precise technological boundary of an invention. The court
• In re Kozaburo Harita
  847 F.2d 801· Fed. Cir.· 1988-05-24 ·cited 2×
  The court should affirm the finding of inequitable conduct due to gross negligence in failing to disclose material prior art to the PTO.
• Grain Processing Corp. v. Am. Maize-Products Co.
  840 F.2d 902· Fed. Cir.· 1988-02-17 ·cited 2×
  The court held that Fro-Dex 10 infringed claims 12-14 because it met the descriptive ratio requirement and demonstrated long-term clarity, reversing the district court's finding of non-infringement on those claims. Other aspects of the district court's decision were affirmed.
• Korody-Colyer Corp. v. Gen. Motors Corp.
  760 F.2d 1293· Fed. Cir.· 1985-05-02 ·cited 2×
  The court affirmed the district court's judgment invalidating the patent for inequitable conduct during prosecution, finding no clear error in the factual findings supporting this conclusion.
• Mission BAY Campland, Inc. v. Sumner Fin. Corp.
  731 F.2d 768· 11th Cir.· 1984-05-07 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the foreclosure and transfer of MBC's assets were fraudulent conveyances and that SFC could recover attorney's fees from the fraudulently transferred fund.
• The Hanover Ins. Co. v. Van Hawkins
  493 F.2d 377· 7th Cir.· 1974-03-18 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the insurance policy's 'completed operations hazard' exclusion applied, and that the insureds were not entitled to reformation of the policy based on the agent's conduct.
• Powell v. Sinclair OIL Corp.
  439 F.2d 114· 10th Cir.· 1971-03-08 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a plaintiff's mistaken belief about the future development of a known injury does not constitute a mutual mistake of fact sufficient to toll the statute of limitations or avoid a release.
• Cameron v. Stephenson
  379 F.2d 953· 10th Cir.· 1967-06-23 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the pipeline cost deduction did not breach the assignment's covenant to deliver royalty oil free of cost at the pipeline, and that the assignments should be reformed to remove forfeiture provisions due to the plaintiff's inequitable conduct in inserting them w
• Robertson v. Adair
  14 Fla. Supp. 26· Citrus Cty. Cir. Ct.· 1957-10-30 ·cited 2×
  Robertson sought to reform and foreclose a mortgage against Adair for defaults in payment, taxes, insurance, and waste. The court granted reformation but denied foreclosure, finding no breach of the tax, insurance, or waste covenants and holding that the mortgagee's inequitable c