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

News & Events

  • Fall Submissions Open – Headnotes

    The Minnesota Law Review: Headnotes fall submissions period is open. For more information, please visit our submissions page. Share this: on Twitter on Facebook on Google+

  • Vol. 97 Piece Quoted in Mother Jones Article

    A recent Mother Jones article predicting how the Roberts Court would resolve King v. Burwell draws on How Business Fares in the Supreme Court from Volume 97. You can read the article here. Share this: on Twitter on Facebook on Google+

  • Welcome to De Novo

    For nearly one hundred years, the Minnesota Law Review has been a leader amongst academic legal publications. When Professor Henry J. Fletcher launched the journal in 1917, his goal was simple. It was to “contribute a little something to the systematic growth of the whole law.” Since then, the Law [...]

  • Minnesota Law Review Alum Remembered 45 Years After Death

    Minnesota Law Review alumnus Tom Cranna was honored at the Annual Banquet this Spring, 45 years after his death. Mr. Cranna was remembered for his contributions to the journal, the school, and the positive impact he had on his family and friends. The Devil’s Lake Journal published a memorial which [...]

  • Follow MLR on Twitter!

    The Minnesota Law Review is proud to announce that we are now on Twitter. Follow us @MinnesotaLawRev for information and updates concerning the petition period and deadlines, the opening and closing of article submissions, our 2014 Symposium: Offenders in the Community, and all other news concerning our authors and publications. [...]


cforms contact form by delicious:days