Minnesota Law Review

Note, Inequitable-Conduct Doctrine Reform: Is the Death Penalty for Patents Still Appropriate?

Over the past three years, the Federal Circuit has contributed to the rise in inequitable-conduct defenses by failing to apply the doctrine consistently. First, the court broadened the scope of the doctrine’s materiality element to include information unrelated to patentability and failed to offer guidance on how to apply multiple materiality standards. Second, the court inconsistently applied the intent-to-deceive element by permitting “highly material” information to be sufficient instead of requiring additional evidence. The potential windfall advantage for alleged patent infringers is irresistible based on the draconian effects of an inequitable conduct finding, rendering entire patents unenforceable. For example, failure to correctly file the patentee’s status or pay maintenance fees could preclude a patent holder from obtaining relief against infringers and likely discourages enforcement of its patent rights.

Congress has repeatedly tried and failed to address the uncertainty created by the Federal Circuit’s variable application of the doctrine. This Note proposes that the Federal Circuit, sitting en banc, adopt minimum penalty guidelines, similar to existing criminal law sentencing guidelines. The proposed guidelines tailor the penalty of inequitable conduct findings to the materiality and intent of the misconduct, while rejecting the requirement to hold the entire patent unenforceable. Ensuring misconduct does not go unpunished, while increasing certainty in patent rights, are the main virtues of this Note’s proposed guidelines.

:: View PDF

De Novo

  • Case Comment: Bhogaita v. Altamonte

    EVERY DOG CAN HAVE HIS DAY IN COURT: THE USE OF ANIMALS AS DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBITS Kyle R. Kroll, Volume 100, Online Managing Editor In Bhogaita v. Altamonte, the Eleventh Circuit recently decided whether to allow a dog in the courtroom as a demonstrative exhibit.[1] Although the case presented many serious [...]

  • Revisiting Water Bankruptcy

    REVISITING WATER BANKRUPTCY IN CALIFORNIA’S FOURTH YEAR OF DROUGHT Olivia Moe, Volume 100, Managing Editor This spring, as “extreme” to “exceptional” drought stretched across most of California—indicating that a four-year streak of drought was not about to resolve itself[1]—Governor Jerry Brown issued an unprecedented order to reduce potable urban water [...]

  • Defying Auer Deference

    DEFYING AUER DEFERENCE: SKIDMORE AS A SOLUTION TO CONSERVATIVE CONCERNS IN PEREZ v. MORTGAGE BANKERS ASSOCIATION Nicholas R. Bednar, Volume 100, Lead Articles Editor* On March 9, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States handed down its decision in Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association.[1]F The Court overturned the D.C. [...]