直 Japanese PDF Font
  • Our Professionals
  • Our Work
  • Our Insights
  • Offices
  • Firm
  • Careers
Finnegan
  • Articles & Books
    • Ad Law Buzz Blog
    • At the PTAB Blog
    • European IP Blog
    • Federal Circuit IP Blog
    • INCONTESTABLE® Blog
    • Prosecution First Blog
  • Events & Webinars
  • IP Updates
  • Podcasts
    • AI + Finnegan
    • AI + Copyright
    • AI + Patent
    • AI + Privacy
    • AI + Trade Secrets
    • AI + Trademark
  • Unified Patent Court (UPC) Hub

Article

Inequitable Conduct and Supplemental Examination: Promise, Procedure, and Particulars

April 16, 2015

Buffalo Intellectual Property Law Journal

By Amanda K. Murphy, Ph.D.

The America Invents Act, signed into law on September 16, 2011, ushered in an array of patent reforms. One overlooked procedure, Supplemental Examination, seeks to purge putative instances of inequitable conduct prior to litigation by allowing patent owners to submit prior art and short statements to the USPTO after patent issuance. Few parties have used it. In this article, Finnegan attorneys Amanda K. Murphy and Jonathan R.K. Stroud analyze the law of inequitable conduct, explain the Supplemental Examination procedure, and discuss potential reasons for its lack of popularity among patent owners.

Tags

America Invents Act (AIA), United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)

Related Practices

Patent Office Invalidation Proceedings

Related Offices

Washington, DC

Related Professionals

Amanda K. Murphy, Ph.D.
Partner
London
+44 (0)20 7864 2814
Email

Originally printed in Buffalo Intellectual Property Law Journal. This article is for informational purposes, is not intended to constitute legal advice, and may be considered advertising under applicable state laws. This article is only the opinion of the authors and is not attributable to Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, or the firm's clients.

Related Insights

Seminar

IAM and WTR Live: Australasia IP Forum 2026

August 11, 2026

Melbourne

Webinar

Successful Strategies to Win Alice Motions and Fee Awards in Patent Cases Against Non-Practicing Entities

July 22, 2026

Webinar

Webinar

Early Motions in Trade Secret Litigation – Offensive and Defensive Insights

July 15, 2026

Webinar

Federal Circuit IP Blog

Federal Circuit Vacates and Remands Infringement and Damages Judgment After Erroneous Verdict Form and Eligibility Analysis

July 8, 2026

Webinar

Inventive Step in Europe and the US: Comparing the UPC, EPO and National Approaches

July 8, 2026

Webinar

Articles

EPR Academy, Part 4 of 6: Choosing Between EPR, IPR, PGR, and Reissue

July 1, 2026

Articles

Article_D.-Mass-Patent-Litigation-Update-October-2024

D. Mass. Patent Litigation Update: May 2026

June 30, 2026

Articles

How Low Can You Go? Courts Lower Marking Defense Burden, Raising Patent Damages Risks

June 29, 2026

Federal Circuit IP Blog

Federal Circuit Affirms Noninfringement Ruling in Hatch-Waxman Litigation Based on Claim Construction, Prosecution History Estoppel, and the Disclosure-Dedication Rule

June 26, 2026

Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.

  • Privacy
  • Disclaimer
  • Legal Notices
  • Fraud Alert
  • EEO Statement
  • Cookies
  • Contact Us

© 2026 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP