Inequitable Conduct Found in False Statements and Deception

March 21, 2007
Post by Blog Staff

In a case before the Federal Circuit, the District Court's conclusion that Cantor's patent was unenforceable due to inequitable conduct was affirmed. The matter before the Court involved a patent for a method and system for trading financial instruments. Specifically, Cantor developed a system that would automate the trading process and avoid the use of "open outcry" and "trade capture processes." However, during the prosecution of its patent, Cantor neglected to disclose its earlier art or versions of software for the same type of methods and systems. This was discovered in another matter where Cantor asserted patent infringement against another defendant over this same art. Cantor tried to cover its tracks with a "blizzard of paper" to the PTO asserting a number of reasons and excuses for failing to disclose during earlier prosecutions; none of which the Court bought. The Federal Circuit held the District Court did not abuse its discretion in finding Cantor provided false statements with intent to deceive the PTO with its ultimate disclosures. More details of the case after the jump.The case involved a patent to create a more efficient automated trading system wherein various bid and offer prices were captured during "open-cry" financial tradings. Cantor successfully prosecuted several patents with this art. Shortly after one of its patents - the '974 patent - issued, Cantor asserted patent infringement against Liberty Brokerage. In preparing for the lawsuit, Cantor's outside counsel discovered that Cantor had not filed the proper disclosures during the prosecution of the '974 patent. Cantor subsequently dismissed its suit upon discovery of this non-disclosure. In an effort to purge any possible inequitable conduct with regard to the '974 patent and to avoid a similar problem with any patent that might issue from the parent patent, Cantor submitted declarations and disclosures of more than 1100 pages to the PTO. The district court found false statements in the documents and from that an inference of intent to deceive the PTO which was affirmed by the Federal Circuit. To read the full decision in eSpeed, Inc. v. BrokerTec USA, L.L.C., click here.

Post Categories

Comments (0)
Post a Comment

Captcha Image
Return to the Filewrapper Blog

Search Posts


The attorneys of McKee, Voorhees & Sease, P.L.C. designed this blog as an informational and educational resource about intellectual property law for our clients, other attorneys, and the public as a whole. Our goal is to provide cutting-edge information about recent developments in intellectual property law, including relevant case law updates, proposed legislation, and intellectual property law in the news.


McKee, Voorhees & Sease, P.L.C. provides this blog for general informational purposes only. By using this blog, you agree that the information on this blog does not constitute legal or other professional advice and no attorney-client or other relationship is created between you and McKee, Voorhees & Sease, P.L.C. Do not consider this blog to be a substitute for obtaining legal advice from a qualified, licensed attorney. While we try to revise this blog on a regular basis, it may not reflect the most current legal developments. We consciously refrain from expressing opinions on this blog and instead, offer it as a form of information and education, however if there appears an expression of opinion, realize that those views are indicative of the individual and not of the firm as a whole.

Connect with MVS

Enter your name and email address to recieve the latest news and updates from us and our attorneys.

Subscribe to: MVS Newsletter

Subscribe to: Filewrapper® Blog Updates

  I have read and agree to the terms and conditions of McKee, Voorhees & Sease, P.L.C.