De Filippis v. Chrysler Sales Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding patents unenforceable when a group of named inventors misrepresented their relationship with a laboratory to conceal that other people may have participated in inventing the technology
• upholding the district court’s decision not to correct inventorship where it found that the “named inventors had omitted the unnamed inventors with deceptive intent”
• \[T]he materiality of intentional false statements may be independent of the claims of the patent.\
• “The defense of inequitable conduct is entirely equitable in nature, and thus not an issue for a jury to decide.”
• “[Wjhether the inventorship of the patents as issued is correct does not determine the materiality of the statements in this case, just as whether concealed prior art would actually invalidate the patent is irrelevant to materiality.”
• “As a critical requirement for obtaining a patent, inventorship is material.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).