State of New Hampshire v. Genaro Claussells-Vega

How courts have described this case

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

• relying on patent counsel’s conduct in a related application, after he had become aware of the material information, to infer intent to deceive
• defining “materiality” as “embrac[ing] any information that a 11 reasonable examiner would substantially likely consider important in deciding whether to allow an 12 application to issue as a patent”
• determining patentee “was not entitled to assume that Examiner Traf-ton would recall his decision to grant the claims of the '372 patent when he was examining the [co-pending] application,” which covered related subject matter
• “ ‘[I]nformation concealed from the PTO may be material even though it would not invalidate the pat ent.’ ” (citation omitted)
• “[T]he content of” “an applicant’s disclosure of a prior art reference . . . is presumed to be before the examiner” (citation omitted)
• “[T]he overwhelming circumstantial evidence, coupled with the lack of any credible explanation for nondisclosure of [the prior art], supports the finding of deceptive intent.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).