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

Webinar

Data and Market Exclusivity: An Update on China’s New Law and Comparisons to the US and Europe

November 19, 2026

Webinar

Seminar

The Augmented Practice 2026: Balancing AI Opportunity, Governance, and Risk

November 5, 2026

San Francisco

Articles

EPR Academy, Part 5 of 6: Special Considerations for Third-Party Requesters

October 14, 2026

Federal Circuit IP Blog

Private Sale Gets No Safe Harbor from §102(b)(1)(B)

October 14, 2026

Webinar

2026 Inventive Step in Europe and the US: Comparing the UPC, EPO and National Approaches

October 14, 2026

Webinar

Articles

California Court Considers CIPA’s Application to Online Tracking as New Law Limits Private Actions

October 7, 2026

INCONTESTABLE® Blog

Federal Court Orders Rebel Creamery to Redesign Packaging and Disgorge $23.8 Million in Van Leeuwen Trade Dress Case

October 7, 2026

Articles

U.S. and European Automotive Updates: Installment 2

October 2026

Seminar

As Congress Intended: Restoring the ITC’s Statutory Function Through Funding Transparency and Substantive Reforms

October 1, 2026

Washington, DC

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