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

Prosecution First Blog

Inequitable Conduct Claim Can Progress Even After the Case Is Complete

December 9, 2022

Authored and Edited by Yicong (Eve) Du; Paul W. Browning, Ph.D.; Thomas Lee Irving; Amanda K. Murphy, Ph.D.; Stacy Lewis†

Holding

In Parallax Grp. Int’l, LLC v. Incstores LLC, No. 8-16-cv-00929, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 157921 (C.D. Cal., August 16, 2022), the district court judge granted-in-part Parallax’s Motion to Dismiss All Claims and Counterclaims and for Entry of Final Judgment but denied the motion with respect to the inequitable conduct counterclaims, allowing that issue to go forward in the context of an anticipated fees motion.

Background

Parallax sued Incstores for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,289,085 ("the '085 Patent"), D532,238 ("the D238 Patent"), and D543,764 ("the D764 Patent"), which relate to interlocking foam floor mats. Defendant Incstores filed counterclaims for noninfringement, invalidity, unenforceability based on inequitable conduct (the “inequitable conduct counterclaims”), and an exceptional case finding under 35 U.S.C. § 285 for an award of reasonable attorney’s fees. Parallax, at *1-2.

During the course of this case, Parallax withdrew its infringement claims concerning the D238 Patent (which had recently been cancelled in a reexamination). Id. at *1. The D764 patent was found invalid by the Court. Id. And the ‘085 patent was held unpatentable by the PTAB in a reexamination, which was affirmed in the Federal Circuit. Id. at *2. Since there was nothing left for Parallax’s case, the parties stipulated to dismiss Parallax’s infringement claims with prejudice, and Incstores’ noninfringement and invalidity counterclaims without prejudice as moot. Incstores could seek attorney’s fees via motion. Id. at *3.

The only issue left was whether Incstores is entitled to pursue its inequitable conduct counterclaims. Id. at *3-4. Not only would a finding of inequitable conduct be helpful for Incstores to show an exceptional case, but Incstores pointed out that there are related patents not at issue in this case which Parallax could still try to enforce, and which may be implicated by the inequitable conduct. Id. at *4.

For a more detailed analysis of this case, please visit At the PTAB Blog.

Tags

inequitable conduct

Related Practices

Federal Circuit and Supreme Court Appeals

Patent Office Invalidation Proceedings

PTAB Invalidation Proceedings: IPR and PGR

Related Industries

Chemicals, Industrials, and Materials

Manufacturing

Consumer Goods and Services

Related Offices

London

Shanghai

Washington, DC

Contacts

Paul W. Browning, Ph.D.
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4134
Email
Amanda K. Murphy, Ph.D.
Partner
London
+44 (0)20 7864 2814
Email

†Stacy Lewis is a Law Clerk at Finnegan.

Copyright © 2022 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.

Related Insights

Conference

IP Life Sciences Forum 2026

December 13-15, 2026

Coral Gables

Panel Discussion

2026 Advanced Patent Law Institute

December 3-4, 2026

Stanford

Webinar

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

November 19, 2026

Webinar

Conference

IAM Live: Navigating the UPC 2026

November 4, 2026

Paris

Conference

2026 ANA Masters of Advertising Law Conference

November 2-4, 2026

Huntington Beach

Conference

2nd Annual Forum on Pharma & Biotech Patent Litigation USA & Canada

October 14-16, 2026

New York

Webinar

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

October 14, 2026

Webinar

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

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

October 7, 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