Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

attorneystatutepatentcorporation
attorney

Related Cases

Medtronic Navigation, Inc. v. BrainLAB Medizinische Computersysteme GmbH, 603 F.3d 943, 95 U.S.P.Q.2d 1065
View Case »
Mackay Radio & Tel. Co. v. F.C.C., 68 App.D.C. 336, 97 F.2d 641
View Case »
Massachusetts Institute of Technology v. AB Fortia, 774 F.2d 1104, 7 ITRD 1405, 227 U.S.P.Q. 428, 4 Fed. Cir. (T) 8
View Case »
United States v. Hopkins, 824 F.3d 726
View Case »
Browder v. United States, Not Reported in Fed. Supp., 2017 WL 262604
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Brasseler, U.S.A. I, L.P. v. Stryker Sales Corp., 267 F.3d 1370, 60 U.S.P.Q.2d 1482

Facts

Brasseler U.S.A. I, L.P. developed a surgical saw blade in collaboration with DS Manufacturing. In 1992, DS sold over 3,250 blades to Brasseler, but Brasseler did not file a patent application until April 1993, fearing an on-sale bar due to the prior sale. Stryker Corporation later challenged the validity of the patent, claiming it was invalid due to the on-sale bar. The district court agreed, leading to a determination of whether Stryker was entitled to attorney fees.

Issue

Rule

Analysis

The district court noted that to prove inequitable conduct, in accordance with FMC Corp. v. Manitowoc Co., 835 F.2d 1411, 5 USPQ2d 1112 (Fed.Cir.1987), one alleging 'failure to disclose' type inequitable conduct must prove with sufficient clarity that: (1) information exists that is material; (2) the applicant or his or her attorney knew of this information and that it was material; and (3) the applicant or his or her attorney failed to disclose the information with the intent to mislead the PTO.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the district court's ruling that Stryker was entitled to attorney fees due to Brasseler's inequitable conduct in procuring the patent.

The court concluded that the alleged May 1992 on-sale bar date had no basis in fact and instead had been concocted by Price simply to set a deadline for Brody's preparation of the application.

Who won?

Stryker Corporation prevailed in this case as the court found that Brasseler's actions constituted inequitable conduct, which justified the award of attorney fees. The court emphasized that the inventors and their attorneys failed to disclose material information regarding the sale of the surgical saw blades, which they knew or should have known was critical to the patent's validity. This conduct was deemed exceptional under the statute, allowing Stryker to recover its attorney fees.

The district court concluded that Brasseler had acted with deceptive intent.

You must be