Fujitsu Ltd. v. Tellabs Ops., Inc., No. 09 C 4530, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Jul. 31, 2012) (Holderman, C.J.).
Judge Holderman granted plaintiff Fujitsu’s motion for summary judgment of no inequitable conduct. The inventors allegedly failed to disclose two prior art references which had been disclosed in prior patent prosecutions, each of which was disclosed during prosecution of the patents in suit. There was a question of fact as to whether each reference was duplicative of other disclosed art and, therefore, was material. But defendant Tellabs did not show the required specific intent – the specific intent “must be the single most reasonable inference able to be drawn from the evidence.” Therasence, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 649 F.3d 1276, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2011). In each case, it was reasonable to infer intent to deceive from the undisputed facts. But it was also reasonable to infer that the inventors believed the references were cumulative or that the inventors forgot to include the references. Because multiple inferences could be drawn, there was no intent as a matter of law.