Exergen Corp. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that inequitable con- duct claim must identify “a specific individual” who purportedly committed it
• holding that patentee’s general awareness of withheld prior art was insufficient in the absence of facts showing knowledge of specific information in the withheld references that was material to the claims of the asserted patent
• finding that pleading did not satisfy Rule 9(b) because it failed to identify “where in those references the material information is found” (emphasis added)
• holding that because the pleadings merely referred “generally to ‘Exergen, its agents and/or attorneys,’ but fail[ed] to name the specific individual associated with the filing or prosecution of the application” of the patent, this did not satisfy the “who” requirement
• noting that, in inequitable conduct claims, \procedural matter[s are] governed by the law of the regional circuit\
• stating that the parties may not seek to contradict the court's claim construction to a jury

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).