What is the rationale behind the ‘all or nothing’ approach to patent unenforceability?

Question

Accepted Answer

Source: FAQ (MPEP-Based) BlueIron Update: 2024-09-29 10 Rules 5 Related FAQs This page is an FAQ based on guidance from the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure. It is provided as guidance, with links to the ground truth sources. This is information only: it is not legal advice. The ‘all or nothing’ approach to patent unenforceability due to inequitable conduct is based on the principle that such misconduct affects the entire patent right. MPEP 2016 cites the Gemveto Jewelry Co. v. Lambert Bros., Inc. case, which explains: “The gravamen of the fraud defense is that the patentee has failed to discharge his duty of dealing with the examiner in a manner free from the taint of ‘fraud or other inequitable conduct.’ … It is an all or nothing proposition.” This rationale emphasizes that the duty of candor applies to the entire patent prosecution process, not just individual claims. Related Rules from the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure 10 rules Collapse Inequitable Conduct Affects All Claims MPEP 2016 Fraud, Inequitable Conduct, or Violation of Duty of Disclosure Invalidates All Claims MPEP 2016 Fraud, Inequitable Conduct, or Duty of Disclosure Violation Invalidates All Claims MPEP 2016 Fraud or Inequitable Conduct Invalidates All Claims MPEP 2016 Inequitable Conduct Renders Patent Unenforceable Regardless of Claim Affected MPEP 2016 Prohibited Duty of Disclosure Materiality Revised Based on Therasense MPEP 2000 Duty of Disclosure to Adopt But-For Materiality Standard MPEP 2000 Guidance on Compliance with Duty of Disclosure Regardless of Materiality Standard MPEP 2000 AIA Amends Duty to Disclose Errors Without Deceptive Intent MPEP 2000 Duty to Disclose Material Information to USPTO MPEP 2000 Other Related FAQs 5 FAQs Collapse What are the consequences of inequitable conduct in patent prosecution? How does the duty of disclosure relate to patent enforceability? What is the impact of fraud, inequitable conduct, or violation of duty of disclosure on patent claims? Can s...