Quest Integrity USA, LLC v. Clean Harbors Industrial Services, Inc., et al.C.A. Nos. 14-1482- SLR; Quest Integrity USA, LLC v. Cokebusters USA Inc., C.A. No. 14-1483- SLR, July 22, 2015

Robinson, J. Plaintiff’s renewed motion to dismiss and strike inequitable conduct allegations against Clean Harbors is granted as unopposed. Plaintiff’s renewed motion to dismiss and strike inequitable conduct allegations against Cokebusters is denied.

Portions of the publicly available prosecution history attached to the motion do not convert the motion to dismiss into a summary judgment motion.  Plaintiff argues that defendant has failed to plead facts sufficient to show but-for materiality or intent to deceive. The allegations that the invention was not new, was obvious and had been sold before the bar date, taken as true at this stage, meet the but-for materiality requirement.  With respect to intent to deceive, Cokebusters alleges that a particular individual was a central figure for the development of the technology and could not claim his misrepresentations were mistakes, and despite numerous opportunities to correct the record, this individual made false statements repeatedly, each time intended to increase the likelihood the patent would issue and obscure pre-bar date sales. Additionally, a strong incentive to misrepresent facts so that the patent would issue was due to oncoming competition and the individual’s opportunity as inventor and shareholder to personally gain from the issuance of the patent. These alleged facts sufficiently plead intent to deceive.