Make No Mistake: Patentee Held to Terminal Disclaimer Despite Unwitting Reliance on Patent Office Error

July 23, 2024

Reading Time : 2 min

A court in the Western District of Oklahoma dismissed a complaint as to one of the asserted patents where the patent included a terminal disclaimer stating that the patent would be enforceable only as long as it was co-owned with a reference patent that the PTO had misidentified. The court relied on the public notice function of the patent system to hold the plaintiff to the exact language in its terminal disclaimer, and held that the asserted patent was unenforceable from the moment it issued because it and the reference patent were never co-owned.

During prosecution, the PTO rejected the claims of the asserted patent on obviousness-type double patenting grounds over the ’267 patent. But the ’267 patent was directed to completely different subject matter and owned by a different entity. Nonetheless, plaintiff overcame that rejection by filing a terminal disclaimer stating that the asserted patent and the ’267 patent were commonly owned by plaintiff and agreeing that the asserted patent would be enforceable only during such period that it and the ’267 patent were commonly owned. But plaintiff never owned the ’267 Patent. It did own the ’268 patent, which was in the same family as the asserted patent, but not mentioned in the office action. Several years after the PTO issued the asserted patent, plaintiff petitioned to withdraw the ’267 disclaimer and replace it with a new terminal disclaimer based on the ’268 patent. The PTO denied the request to withdraw but allowed plaintiff to file a new terminal disclaimer with respect to the ’268 patent.

In its motion to dismiss, defendant argued that the terms of the terminal disclaimer were clear: the asserted patent would be enforceable only while it and the ’267 patent were commonly owned. And because the two patents were never commonly owned, the asserted patent was never enforceable. Plaintiff explained that the ’267 terminal disclaimer was ineffective because it was disconnected from the purpose of a terminal disclaimer—to resolve an obviousness-type double patenting issue. Plaintiff further argued that regulations bar a patent applicant from filing a terminal disclaimer to a patent that it does not commonly own. Finally, plaintiff argued that the mistake would be obvious to anyone reading the prosecution history of the patent.

The court acknowledged the dearth of opinions addressing an erroneous terminal disclaimer, but explained that the public is entitled to rely on the clear terms in a patentee’s terminal disclaimer.  Here, the patentee gave notice to the public that the asserted patent was unenforceable so long as it was commonly owned with the ’267 patent. The two patents were never commonly owned, and the court could not assume no member of the public ever relied on the ’267 patent disclaimer.  The court was not persuaded that the mistake was obvious because even the patentee itself did not notice the error for years. Because the ’267 disclaimer rendered the asserted patent unenforceable, the court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss.

Practice Tip: Patent applicants should carefully review both the PTO’s obviousness-type double patenting rejections and their own terminal disclaimers to ensure that there are no errors. The public notice function of the patent system could lead a court to strictly interpret a terminal disclaimer as it is written, even if it refers to a patent that the PTO had erroneously identified.

SIPCO, LLC v. Jasco Prods. Co., LLC, No. CIV-19-00709-PRW (W.D. Okla. May 29, 2024)

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

November 5, 2024

The Federal Circuit vacated a district court’s fee award because the district court considered certain information that was not relevant to the question of whether plaintiff’s case was exceptional. Specifically, the Federal Circuit held that only those “red flags” that related to the successful Section 101 defense, which served as the basis for the district court’s grant of summary judgment, could be used to show the case was fatally flawed.   

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

November 1, 2024

The Federal Circuit’s decision in Kyocera Senco Industrial Tools Inc. v. International Trade Commission articulated a bright-line test for patent expert admissibility: to testify from the perspective of a “person of ordinary skill in the art” (POSITA), the expert must at least meet the definition of a POSITA for the patents-in-suit. Absent that level of skill, Kyocera holds that the witness’s testimony is not sufficiently reliable or relevant enough to be relied on by a fact-finder.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

October 29, 2024

The PTAB denied a petitioner’s motion to compel routine discovery that sought information from a parallel ITC investigation for alleged inconsistent positions taken by patent owner in the IPR. The board found that patent owner had not taken inconsistent positions but warned patent owner that it had an ongoing duty to produce any information inconsistent with arguments made during the present IPR, even if that information related to arguments patent owner had dropped at the ITC.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

October 11, 2024

The Central District of California ruled that the heightened pleading standard of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) applies to all three prongs of a false patent marking claim, including the third prong, competitive injury. In doing so, took a clear stand on an issue with a nationwide split among district courts.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

October 10, 2024

In a patent case containing a variety of federal and state law claims, the District of Massachusetts retained supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims even after all the federal law claims were dismissed.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

October 3, 2024

The Federal Circuit recently upheld the USPTO’s authority under the estoppel provision 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(d)(3)(i) to prohibit a patent owner from obtaining patent claims that are not patentably distinct from claims previously declared unpatentable in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings. However, the court clarified that the regulation applies only to new claims or amended claims, not previously issued claims.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 27, 2024

In Kyocera Senco Industrial Tools Inc. v. International Trade Commission, the Federal Circuit held that an expert must meet the definition of a “person of ordinary skill in the art” of the asserted patents in order to opine on infringement, among other issues. This new bright-line test and the underlying rationale, however, raised several new questions regarding expert admissibility. SeeFederal Circuit: Narrow Definition of Skill in the Art Dooms Expert’s Testimony” and “Grappling With A Bright-Line Patent Expert Admissibility Test.” The Federal Circuit recently addressed one of those questions, namely whether an expert must have acquired the requisite level of skill as of the time of the invention or whether it is sufficient for an expert to acquire that knowledge at a later date.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 23, 2024

The Director of the USPTO initiated sua sponte review of a PTAB panel’s decision to impose sanctions based on patentee’s conduct during IPR proceedings. The PTAB cancelled all of patentee’s claims, including those not unpatentable on the merits, after finding that patentee deliberately withheld data relevant to the patentability of the claims at issue. In her review, the Director addressed which regulations are implicated upon a party’s misconduct during AIA proceedings and addressed whether entry of judgment in the trial was an appropriate sanction.

...

Read More

© 2024 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.