Pages

People

IP Case Updates Blog

Practices

Explore the latest in patent, trademark, and copyright cases on the Merchant & Gould LLP blog. Stay informed with expert insights on intellectual property law updates.

Home - IP Case Updates Blog

Last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued an opinion in <a href="https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/23-1882.OPINION.2-26-2026_2653261.pdf">Global Tubing, LLC v. Tenaris Coiled Tubes LLC, Case Nos. 2023-1882, -1883 (Feb. 26, 2026)</a>, reversing the district court’s grant of summary judgment that Tenaris committed inequitable conduct in obtaining U.S. Patent Nos. 9,803,256; 10,387,074; and 10,387,075 and in Tenaris’s favor on Global Tubing’s Walker Process fraud claim.

core/paragraph

Tenaris’s predecessor-in-interest, Southwestern Pipe, used a quench-and-temper method to make its coiled tubing product, “CYMAX.” Tenaris acquired Southwestern’s assets in 2006 and then developed its own coiled-tubing product. The asserted patents relate to Tenaris’s product. During the prosecution of the asserted patents, Tenaris disclosed to the Patent Office a paper describing CYMAX, but did not expressly disclose the entirety of the CYMAX specifications, in connection with the ’074 Patent and the ’075 Patent, and did not disclose CYMAX at all in connection with the ’256 Patent.

Global Tubing sought declaratory judgment of noninfringement, and Tenaris counterclaimed alleging infringement of the asserted patents. During discovery, Tenaris inadvertently produced communications with its prosecution counsel that revealed the non-disclosure of CYMAX. Global Tubing amended its complaint to add claims for inequitable conduct and Walker Process fraud, i.e., that Tenaris was using its fraudulently-obtained patents to monopolize the market. The district court granted summary judgment to Global Tubing on the inequitable conduct claim and to Tenaris on the Walker Process claim. Both sides appealed.

The Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment on both claims. With respect to the inequitable conduct claim, there was record evidence suggesting Tenaris did not believe that the CYMAX documents needed to be disclosed; notably, Tenaris disclosed the CYMAX documents to its prosecution counsel and Tenaris believed that the paper describing CYMAX included all relevant information. Accordingly, genuine disputes of material fact existed as to whether Tenaris acted with specific intent to deceive the Patent Office.

With respect to Global Tubing’s Walker Process fraud claim, the parties set forth competing evidence as to the relevant product and geographic market for Global Tubing’s monopolization theory. The Court held that the district court erred in holding that Tenaris was a “small market player,” posing no dangerous probability of monopolizing the market, without defining the relevant market or addressing the parties’ genuine disputes over the same.

CAFC Reverses Summary Judgment on Inequitable Conduct and Walker Process Fraud Claims

Related Professionals