Cargill, Inc. v. Canbra Foods, Ltd.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that an applicant’s argument that the information was withheld in “ ‘good faith’ does not negate an intent to manipulate the evidence” when “an applicant knows or obviously should know that information would be material to the examiner”
• explaining that “the standard for materiality set forth in the current version of ... Rule 56 ... did not supplant the earlier ‘reasonable examiner’ standard. ...”
• applying now-inap- plicable pre-Therasense standard for materiality of whether applicant “should have known” examiner would find reference pertinent to patentability
• “a reasonable examiner would certainly want to consider test data that is directly related to an important issue of patentability.”
• once materiality and intent are established by clear and convincing evidence, it is necessary to evaluate all the circumstances of the case to determine whether the patent should be unenforceable
• “Neither an inventor nor his counsel may graft claims onto an earlier specification if those claims do not reflect what the inventor actually invented at the time of the earlier application.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).