Federal Circuit Finally Defines Materiality for Inequitable Conduct

After almost 15 years of admittedly dodging the issue, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in <i>Digital Control Incorporated v. Charles Machine Works</i>, ___ F.3d ___, 2006 WL 288075 (Fed. Cir., Feb. 8, 2006), finally determined that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Rule 56, as amended in 1992, does not supplement or replace existing case law in determining the threshold of materiality. The court stated that '[a]lthough we have affirmed findings of materiality based upon the new Rule 56, we have declined to address whether the Rule 56 standard replaced the old 'reasonable examiner' standard.' <i>Id.</i> at *4. Instead, the court found the Rule 56 standard merely 'provides an additional test of materiality' to the existing 'but for,' 'but it may have,' and 'reasonable examiner' tests.

15 minute read March 29, 2006 at 02:29 PM
By
Peter Toren
Federal Circuit Finally Defines Materiality for Inequitable Conduct

After almost 15 years of admittedly dodging the issue, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Digital Control Incorporated v. Charles Machine Works, ___ F.3d ___, 2006 WL 288075 (Fed.

This premium content is locked for LawJournalNewsletters subscribers only

ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN LawJournalNewsletters

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Subscribe Now

Already have an account? Sign In Now

For enterprise-wide or corporate access, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or call 1-877-256-2473.

NOT FOR REPRINT

© 2026 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.

Continue Reading

How Courts Interpret and Apply the Interplay Between the Bankruptcy Code and Medicare Program Act

The combination of increasing operating costs and uncertain government reimbursement funding continues to place health care providers under financial pressure, and in many cases, financial distress. Given the importance of Medicare/Medicaid funding of claims under provider agreements with the federal government, how courts interpret and apply the interplay between the Bankruptcy Code and Medicare Program Act determines the disposition of hundreds of millions of dollars of claims for reimbursement that support the health care system.

April 30, 2026

AI Transparency: Clear Explanations Matter More Than Disclosure

As AI becomes embedded in everyday business and legal operations, organizations are confronting a new expectation: simply disclosing AI use is no longer enough. A critical shift is taking place in the legal industry: transparency is no longer just about disclosure; it’s about comprehension.

April 30, 2026