The regulations governing inequitable conduct are provided by 37 C.F.R. §1.56 (“Rule 56”), which imposes a duty to disclose information to the USPTO when an individual is (1) associated with the filing and prosecution of a patent application, and (2) knows that the information in question is material. For purposes of identifying who owes a duty of candor to the USPTO, Rule 56 defines “individual(s) associated with the filing or prosecution of a patent application” as (1) each named inventor, (2) each attorney or agent that prepares or prosecutes the application, and (3) every other person who is substantively involved in the preparation or prosecution of the application and who is associated with the inventor or assignee. 37 C.F.R §1.56(c). 

Dr. Stoddard is neither an inventor nor an attorney or agent involved in the preparation or prosecution of the patent, so the issue of whether or not he owed a duty to candor to the USPTO involved an analysis of whether or not he was “substantially involved” in the preparation or prosecution of the patent, and whether or not the prior demonstration was material to patentability. 

With respect to “substantially involved,” the Federal Circuit identified a number of factors in affirming the ruling of the district court that Dr. Stoddard met this requirement. Some of these factors included his position and responsibilities in the company, his involvement in hiring the engineers/inventors to develop the product, and his communication with the inventors during prosecution of the patent in Europe. 

With respect to materiality, the Federal Circuit dismissed Avid’s argument that the demonstration was not material to the patentability of the claims even though it would not have lead to a proper §102(b) rejection by the USPTO. Indeed, the demonstration involved a preliminary product that failed to contain all of the elements of the issued patent claims. Moreover, an infringement jury was given information regarding the demonstration and still found the patent valid. However, the court reasoned that the demonstration, while not invalidating, was the closest prior art and was thus material. By doing so, the court relied on the “reasonable examiner” standard, which was written out of the old Rule 56 (i.e., prior to the 1992 amendments). The current Rule 56 is much more objective and likely would have found this demonstration non-material to patentability. 

The Federal Circuit thus affirmed the lower court’s ruling that Avid’s patent was unenforceable for inequitable conduct committed by Dr. Stoddard. This case seems to be a close call, and it certainly didn’t help that Dr. Stoddard purposefully withheld the information knowing that it would likely have some impact during prosecution. If anything, this case serves as a reminder to submit any relevant information to the USPTO even if the person aware of this information is only remotely involved in the preparation and prosecution of a patent application. 

See Avid Identification Sys. v. Crystal Import Corp., No. 09-1216 (Fed. Cir. April 27, 2010).

A transcript of the hour-long oral argument is available here.

Under U.S. law, when a lawsuit is commenced, a company is required to preserve records relating to the issues in the lawsuit, and thereafter to produce for inspection, copies of such documents as are properly requested during the course of the litigation.  These activities may be illegal in Europe.  According to Indiana University Maurer School of Law Professor Fred Cate, the mere retention of European records containing personal data in anticipation of a U.S. discovery request would itself violate European rules.  Moreover, the mere electronic searching of the records themselves may violate the European rules.  A French high court held that an employer had no legal right to read its employees’ e-mails and other documents, even if the employer supplied the computer and expressly provided that employees were not to use their computers for personal use.  A Greek data protection authority held that an employer can not automatically scan an employee’s emails, unless the employee is informed in advance and has been given a technical means to protect the secrecy of his own communications.  The Italian Supreme Court held that an employer can only monitor employee emails if there is an agreement with the local union or approval is obtained from the local labor office.  A Texas court concluded that the Volkswagen’s printed corporate telephone directory was subject to privacy rights in Germany that prevented it from having to be disclosed in U.S. litigation.  Volkswagen, A.G. v. Valdez, 909 S.W.2d 900 (Tex. 1995).   There is no mechanism under European law that permits U.S. companies to obtain information from Europe that contains business records that contain personal information, and as to what constitutes “personal information” is very broadly construed so as to include even a corporate phone directory.

Please contact us if you would like more information on the apparent conflict between European privacy laws and U.S. discovery requirements.

How does a party identify all of the relevant information located in these electronic storage media? The “rules” for how to search ESI are still being written, but recent cases are laying out some boundaries.

In Qualcomm Inc. v. Broadcomm Corp., a district court in California found that Qualcomm’s failure to conduct basic searches on ESI prior to trial was equivalent to withholding documents. The penalty for not producing the 46,000 relevant documents was Broadcomm’s attorney’s fees – about $10 million. Importantly, the court believed that Qualcomm, its attorneys, or both had intentionally not searched for the highly relevant documents in order to preserve their case.

Qualcomm’s take home message: Make sure that your company searches all ESI relevant to the litigation. Attorneys handling your company’s litigation will need to understand your business’s structure, the various roles of your employees, and where information is kept. Any witness for deposition or trial will also need to have his or her data searched.

In Victor Stanley, Inc. v. Creative Pipe Inc., a district court in Maryland found that Creative Pipe had waived privilege on 165 electronically stored documents it had inadvertently produced to opposing counsel. The waiver allows opposing counsel to use the documents as evidence at trial, provided they are otherwise admissible. Importantly, the court determined that Creative Pipe “overproduced” as a result of not conducting reasonable searches, and not reviewing what they were producing.

In the digital age of litigation, companies must straddle the line between producing relevant ESI, but not “overproducing” ESI. Is there a method for doing this? Studies are still underway to evaluate ESI searching procedures and recommend standard processes for litigants. In the meantime, both Qualcomm and Victor Stanley agree that companies must be able to justify the search process they use. This includes choosing appropriate keywords; performing sophisticated searches when necessary; and “sampling” the results to assure it is yielding the expected results. Courts suggest the ideal is that parties devise and adhere to a joint protocol for searching.

While appropriate searching may seem intimidating, it is possible to do it appropriately and cost-effectively. Attorneys at Woodard, Emhardt, Moriarty, McNett & Henry possess the scientific and technical backgrounds necessary to ensure that a correct methodology is chosen for ESI searching. As stated in Victor Stanley, “…doing it right the first time is always cheaper than doing it over if ordered to do so by the court.” 250 F.R.D. 251, 261 (D. Md. 2008).