ArticleHuman vaccines & immunotherapeutics2016
The shadow of inequitable conduct in the US patent application.
Article in Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Inequitable conduct regarding any single claim can render the entire patent unenforceable and further damage other related patents and applications in the assignee's patent portfolio. The adverse impact of inequitable conduct significantly became a litigation strategy. The US Federal Circuit (CAFC) observed that inequitable conduct as a patent litigation strategy had become a plague and thus tightened the standard for finding inequitable conduct in a case with full court judges. However, under the shadow of previous adverse impact of inequitable conduct, patent applicants may still submit many marginal related references. This study demonstrates that an applicant even prepared an information disclosure statement (IDS) as many as 50 pages. Actually, under the new standard, inequitable conduct would not further produce significant impact in the US patent system. Thus, a patent applicant need not submit marginal references but should distinguish the prior art from the current application, especially for those listed in the IDS, to avoid the novelty rejection.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.