May 3, 2018
Authored and Edited by Ashley M. Winkler; Kara A. Specht; Elizabeth D. Ferrill
In Gilead Sciences, Inc. v. Merck & Co., the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision finding that Merck’s pre-litigation business misconduct and litigation misconduct barred it from asserting two patents against Gilead under the unclean hands doctrine. The district court decision vacated a $200 million jury award for infringement of Merck’s patents.
The district court found that Dr. Durette, an inventor and patent agent for Merck, had participated in a conference call with Gildead’s predecessor-in-interest related to the sofosbuvir compound. In violation of a confidentiality agreement, Dr. Durette then used information from that call to narrow the claims of a pending application to target a specific group of compounds, including sofosbuvir. Ultimately this application resulted in two patents, and Merck sued Gilead for infringement. Although Dr. Durette repeatedly testified at his deposition that he could not recall whether he had participated in the conference call, at trial, Dr. Durette admitted that he had known about the call.
Judge Taranto noted that the doctrine of unclean hands should not be invoked lightly but found that the evidence in this case did not support overturning the district court decision. He stated that the “findings establish serious misconduct, violating clear standards of probity in the circumstances.”
Copyright © 2018 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP.
DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information.
At the PTAB Blog
Discretion All the Way Down: USPTO Uses a Discretionary IPR Denial to Justify a
§ 325(d) EPR Denial
May 28, 2026
At the PTAB Blog
IPR and PGR Statistics for Final Written Decisions Issued in March and April 2026
May 26, 2026
At the PTAB Blog
May 20, 2026
Conference
19th Annual Forum on Pharma & Biotech Patent Litigation in Europe
May 19-20, 2026
Amsterdam
Webinar
Changes at the PTAB from Settled Expectations to Real Parties in Interest to Director Involvement
May 18, 2026
Webinar
Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.