## Facts

- Michael Tuskos (Michael) was a listed inventor and owner of three patents relating to a machine used in the textile industry.
- In 1972, Michael entered a licensing agreement with Tuskos Engineering (Tuskos), a closely held corporation associated with Michael, under which Tuskos agreed to pay royalties to Michael at the rate of 10% of the selling price of each machine sold.
- For several years, Tuskos paid royalties under the agreement, then later stopped making payments.
- Michael sued Tuskos in Jefferson Circuit Court for breach of the license agreement, seeking an accounting and payment of unpaid royalties.
- Tuskos counterclaimed, alleging Michael obtained the patents through fraud on the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and that the patents were invalid; Tuskos sought to recover prior royalty payments totaling more than $31,000.
- After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court found that Michael had made erroneous statements during patent prosecution about prior uses and publications related to the inventions.
- The trial court also found that Michael did not commit intentional fraud and did not knowingly conceal information from the Patent Office.
- Based on those findings, the trial court refused to declare the patents invalid, dismissed Tuskos’s counterclaim for repayment, and entered judgment awarding Michael $7,380 in unpaid royalties.
- Tuskos appealed to the Kentucky Court of Appeals.

## Issues

1. Whether erroneous statements to the Patent Office about prior uses and publications, without proof of intentional fraud or knowing concealment, required the patents to be treated as invalid in this royalty dispute.
2. Whether the licensee could avoid paying royalties and recover past royalties on a theory of fraud in procurement when the trial court found no intentional fraud or knowing concealment.
3. Whether the trial court’s factual findings on intent and concealment were clearly erroneous so as to justify reversal on appeal.

## Decision

- The Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed the Jefferson Circuit Court’s judgment.
- The court left intact the trial court’s refusal to declare the patents invalid on the record presented.
- The court upheld the award of $7,380 in unpaid royalties to Michael.
- The court upheld dismissal of Tuskos’s counterclaim seeking repayment of more than $31,000 in royalties previously paid.

## Legal Principles

- A claim of fraud in obtaining a patent requires proof of intentional deception or knowing concealment; inaccurate or erroneous prosecution statements alone do not establish fraud.
- In an appeal from a bench trial, an appellate court generally will not disturb factual findings—especially findings about intent—if they are supported by the evidence and are not clearly erroneous.
- A party seeking to avoid contractual royalty obligations based on alleged patent-procurement fraud bears the burden of proving fraud; absent that proof, the royalty agreement remains enforceable according to its terms.
- In a state-law action over unpaid royalties, a court may resolve whether fraud was proved on the evidence before it; where fraud is not proved, the licensee is not entitled to rescission or restitution of royalties already paid.

## Conclusion

Because the trial court found that Michael’s patent-prosecution errors were not intentional fraud and did not involve knowing concealment, the Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment enforcing the license agreement, including the award of unpaid royalties to Michael and the dismissal of Tuskos’s counterclaim for repayment of prior royalties.


Tuskos Engineering v. Tuskos, 676 S.W.2d 794 (1984)