Hewlett-Packard Company, Plaintiff/cross-Appellant v. Bausch & Lomb Incorporated Case Brief
Complete case briefs with LSD+
Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A patent owner submitted false affidavits to add narrower claims during a reissue proceeding. The court found the new claims invalid due to a defective application but held that the original, unchanged claims remained valid. The separate issue of inequitable conduct was remanded.
Legal Significance: A defective patent reissue application invalidates only the new or amended claims, not the original “carry-over” claims. Separately, inequitable conduct during reissue requires a specific finding of intent to deceive the PTO, not merely gross negligence, to render the entire patent unenforceable.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Bausch & Lomb (B&L) acquired a patent for an “X-Y Plotter” to assert against its competitor, Hewlett-Packard (HP). Concerned that the patent’s main claim was overly broad, B&L sought reissue under 35 U.S.C. § 251 to add three narrower, dependent claims that specifically covered features of HP’s plotter. To justify the reissue, B&L’s declaration stated the original patentee had claimed less than he had a right to claim due to an “oversight.” The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) rejected this as insufficient. To overcome the rejection, B&L submitted two affidavits from the original patent agent, Lawrence Fleming, which falsely claimed he had very limited contact with the inventor and had drafted the original claims without adequate guidance or understanding of the invention. During litigation, discovery revealed Fleming’s personal notebooks, which detailed extensive communications with the inventor, proving the affidavits contained, in the court’s words, “pure fiction.” The district court found the new claims (10-12) invalid due to the defective reissue application and held the entire patent, including the original claims (1-9), unenforceable for inequitable conduct.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: When a patent reissue application is defective for lacking a valid “error” under 35 U.S.C. § 251, does this defect invalidate both the newly added claims and the original claims carried over unchanged into the reissue patent?
No. The court affirmed the invalidity of the new claims (10-12) but Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptat
IRAC Legal Analysis
About IRAC analysis
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.
Legal Issue
When a patent reissue application is defective for lacking a valid “error” under 35 U.S.C. § 251, does this defect invalidate both the newly added claims and the original claims carried over unchanged into the reissue patent?
Conclusion
This case establishes that a defective reissue application invalidates only the new Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim v
Legal Rule
A defective reissue application, based on a failure to establish a valid Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irur
Legal Analysis
The court's analysis focused on the distinct requirements and consequences of patent Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qu
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Summary unavailable
No flash summary is available for this opinion.