Duty of Candor and Good Faith

Paper Summary:

The paper analyzes and compares the consequences of failing to satisfy the duty of disclosure, candor and good faith at the United States Patent and Trademark Office, in particular as it applies in relation to the filing of information disclosure statements, to the consequence for failing to notify search results to IP Australia.

Outline:
Australian Patents Act (1990) - Sections 45(3), 101D and 102(2C)
Comparison

From the Paper:

"In order to establish a case of fraud, it must be shown that there existed an element of wilful, wrongful conduct, or wrongful intent before the Patent & Trademark Office, and that the wrongful conduct or intent attempted to impair, or actually impaired, the Patent & Trademark Office's ability to perform its statutory function . On the other hand, the lesser charge of inequitable conduct is established by showing that the information withheld was material, and that the misrepresentation was intentional ."

Sample of Sources Used:

• Krebs Robert E. (Thelen Reid & Priest LLP) "Sophisticated Uses of Reissue and Reexamination" (http://www.aipla.org/Content/ContentGroups/Speaker_Papers/Road_Show_Papers/200512/Patent_Prosecution/KrebsPaper.pdf)
• Lahore J & Garnsey J (eds) Lahore. Patent, Trade marks & Related Rights Butterworths Sydney 1996-
• Rosenberg PD. Patent Law Fundamentals Vol. II 2nd ed West Publishing Co., St. Paul Minnesota 2001-
• Manual of Patent Examining Procedures 8th Ed 2001 (MPEP)
• Title 37 Code of Federal Regulations 1.56

More papers on Duty of Candor and Good Faith:

• Analytical Essay # 127211 : "Friendship in "Of Mice and Men"
• Essay # 138181 : "Insider vs. Outsider: An Analysis of Perspectives on Christian Faith"
• Case Study # 88300 : "The Importance of Dreaming to Good Health"

APA Citation:

MLA Citation: