Inequitable Conduct Requires Proof of Intent

In two cases decided in March, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reinforced the necessity of proving an intent to deceive in any claim of inequitable conduct. Kao Corp. v. Unilever United States, Inc., Case Nos. 05-1038, -1049 (Mar. 21, 2006) (Gajarsa, J.); Atofina v. Great Lakes Chem. Corp., Case No. 05-1359 (Mar. 23, 2006) (Lourie, J.; Dyk, J. dissenting). Each case repeats essentially the same admonition: "[i]ntent to deceive cannot be inferred solely from the fact that information was not disclosed; there must be a factual basis for a finding of deceptive intent," and "[M]ateriality does not presume intent, which is a separate and essential component of inequitable conduct."