A federal judge in California found this week that although Nevro Corp.‘s failure to correct a patent examiner’s misunderstanding of prior art was a little “sleazy,” it does not account to inequitable conduct.
Boston Scientific argued that the prosecuting attorney had a duty to respond to the examiner’s confusion, which came about as part of an ongoing patent argument between the two companies. But federal judge Vince Chhabria ruled otherwise.
“Although this argument is not unreasonable, it goes against the great weight of the case law, which stands for the proposition that while an inventor must disclose all material information to the patent examiner, he is not required to make sure the patent examiner understands that information,” the judge wrote.
