Patent Law | Expert Legal Commentary
June 21, 2010
Avid Identification Systems v. Crystal Import Co.: President May Have Rule 56 Duty to Disclose
Avid Identification Systems Inc. v. The Crystal Import Corporation
By
Olivier A. Taillieu and Jeffrey J. Zuber of Zuber & Taillieu LLP
The Federal Circuit has held that the founder and president of a company that has submitted a patent application may owe a duty to disclose to the USPTO under Rule 56(c)(3), even if he was not the inventor or preparing attorney or agent. In Avid Identification Systems Inc. v. The Crystal Import Corporation, 603 F.3d 967 (Fed. Cir. 2010), the Court upheld a district court ruling that a company president who was more involved in the sales of company products than their technical development nevertheless owed a duty of candor to the USPTO under 37 CFR section 1.56, which the company president breached. The Court affirmed the lower court’s factual analysis resulting in its finding that the company president was “substantively involved in the preparation or prosecution of the patent application.”
To continue reading this article, subscribe now
It's FREE and only takes seconds
About the Authors
Olivier A. Taillieu is a Partner of Zuber & Taillieu LLP, focusing on intellectual property litigation and arbitration.
Jeffrey J. Zuber is a Partner of Zuber & Taillieu LLP, focusing on intellectual property litigation and arbitration.
Image Credit: ©iStockphoto.com/zig4photo
View a PDF of the judicial opinion