Patent Question - Unclean Hands Doctrine

Patent Question - Unclean Hands Doctrine

sydnme2002@yahoo.com (Syd)	10/19/2003 9:29:40 PM
If an individual is advertising a patented invention (displaying the patent number in the advertisement) and the advertisement is clearly intended to fraudulently deceive the consumer, would this be classified as unclean hands and therefore render the patent unenforceable?



"McGyver"	10/20/2003 9:31:18 AM
"Syd" <sydnme2002@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:53e97c5b.0310192029.342537c0@posting.google.com... If an individual is advertising a patented invention (displaying the patent number in the advertisement) and the advertisement is clearly intended to fraudulently deceive the consumer, would this be classified as unclean hands and therefore render the patent unenforceable? "Unclean hands" is a defense. The hands referred to are the hands of the person bringing an equity action or asserting an equitable defense. The concept is not a cause of action and has nothing to do with the enforceability of a patent. The false advertising or fraud of the patent holder also doesn't have anything to do with enforceability of a patent. McGyver



"Douglas S. Ladden"	10/20/2003 7:28:05 PM
McGyver on 20 Oct 2003 suggested: "Syd" <sydnme2002@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:53e97c5b.0310192029.342537c0@posting.google.com... "Unclean hands" is a defense. The hands referred to are the hands of the person bringing an equity action or asserting an equitable defense. The concept is not a cause of action and has nothing to do with the enforceability of a patent. The false advertising or fraud of the patent holder also doesn't have anything to do with enforceability of a patent. I'm not too sure about that last statement of yours. Fraud by the Patent holder can most definitely affect enforceability of a patent, and there is case law on point. Now whether a fraudulent advertisement would, I believe, would turn on whether the fraud directly related to the referenced patent, i.e. stating the product was covered by a patent when it wasn't, or some such. --Douglas



cj.green@worldnet.att.net (Christopher Green)	10/20/2003 1:37:21 PM
sydnme2002@yahoo.com (Syd) wrote in message news:<53e97c5b.0310192029.342537c0@posting.google.com>... If an individual is advertising a patented invention (displaying the patent number in the advertisement) and the advertisement is clearly intended to fraudulently deceive the consumer, would this be classified as unclean hands and therefore render the patent unenforceable? The "unclean hands" doctrine as applied to patents has been the source of some controversy. The case of Aptix v. Quickturn [summarized nicely at http://www.jaeckle.com/Articles.asp?ID=32] illustrates current thinking. The majority held that "unclean hands" in patent litigation [Aptix submitted a fraudulent notebook in its infringement case against Quickturn] is grounds for dismissal, but does not make the patent itself unenforceable. I doubt that deceitful advertising would rise to the sort of inequitable conduct that would require making the patent unenforceable as a remedy. But I'm not a lawyer. -- Chris Green



sydnme2002@yahoo.com (Syd)	10/20/2003 7:29:41 PM
"Douglas S. Ladden" <nospamreply@nowayjose.org> wrote in message news:<Xns941A7EB784BA8Legal1Ladden2Law3@216.148.227.77>... McGyver on 20 Oct 2003 suggested: I'm not too sure about that last statement of yours. Fraud by the Patent holder can most definitely affect enforceability of a patent, and there is case law on point. Now whether a fraudulent advertisement would, I believe, would turn on whether the fraud directly related to the referenced patent, i.e. stating the product was covered by a patent when it wasn't, or some such. --Douglas In the case I'm discussing the individual advertised a patented product (advised of the patent number) and the sales advertisement clearly violated 2 FTC statutes of deceptive trade practices. Some comments here seemed to get a little confused here. What I meant was using a federally issued patent to commit fraud against the public should render the patent unenforceable at least until the fraudulent activity is stopped. We are not talking about invalidating the patent, merely rendering it unenforceable as a result of "Unclean Hands". I do understand that the Unclean Hands issue is defensive and cannot be used to recoupe equity. That would probably require a whole new litigation involving the Lanham Act. At this time I am just looking at this as being defensive.



cj.green@worldnet.att.net (Christopher Green)	10/20/2003 11:19:54 PM
sydnme2002@yahoo.com (Syd) wrote in message news:<53e97c5b.0310201829.71c9aeef@posting.google.com>... "Douglas S. Ladden" <nospamreply@nowayjose.org> wrote in message news:<Xns941A7EB784BA8Legal1Ladden2Law3@216.148.227.77>... In the case I'm discussing the individual advertised a patented product (advised of the patent number) and the sales advertisement clearly violated 2 FTC statutes of deceptive trade practices. Some comments here seemed to get a little confused here. What I meant was using a federally issued patent to commit fraud against the public should render the patent unenforceable at least until the fraudulent activity is stopped. We are not talking about invalidating the patent, merely rendering it unenforceable as a result of "Unclean Hands". I do understand that the Unclean Hands issue is defensive and cannot be used to recoupe equity. That would probably require a whole new litigation involving the Lanham Act. At this time I am just looking at this as being defensive. Which is why the "unclean hands" doctrine doesn't sound like it's apropos to whatever it is you're trying to accomplish. "Unclean hands" is a defense that a defendant who has been sued for patent infringement can raise, to prevent the plaintiff from enforcing the patent. The plaintiff's "unclean hands" have to be closely related to the patent application or the litigation at hand. The courts have been cautious in limiting its scope to that much and no more. -- Not a lawyer, Chris Green



"McGyver"	10/21/2003 10:43:31 AM
"Syd" <sydnme2002@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:53e97c5b.0310201829.71c9aeef@posting.google.com... . . . . . . What I meant was using a federally issued patent to commit fraud against the public should render the patent unenforceable at least until the fraudulent activity is stopped. If you are using the word "should" to mean that this is what the law should be, then I'm not arguing with you. I'll leave that issue to you and congress. But as things stand, congress didn't include such a provision in the patent law, as far as I know. Congress meant to give exclusive rights to the inventor for a limited period of time, in exchange for the inventor revealing the invention to the public. Simple. McGyver



sydnme2002@yahoo.com (Syd)	10/22/2003 10:58:18 AM
Thank you all!!

Report this post for offensive content