The Federal Circuit and Inequitable Conduct: An Empirical Assessment
Loyola Law School Los Angeles
University of Iowa - College of Law
October 4, 2010
84 Southern California Law Review 1293
Loyola-LA Legal Studies Paper No. 2010-48
Inequitable conduct is a unique judicially created doctrine designed to punish patent applicants who behave inequitably toward the public in the course of patent acquisition. Its name alone strikes fear into the hearts of patent prosecutors, and justly so – for when successfully asserted, inequitable conduct can have devastating consequences that reach far beyond a patentee’s case. The need for a systematic empirical study of inequitable conduct jurisprudence has become especially pressing now that the Federal Circuit is reviewing inequitable conduct en banc – in terms so broad as to be unprecedented in the history of the doctrine. This Article reports such a study.
The study reported here provides evidence, inter alia, that the Federal Circuit applies an inequitable conduct standard stricter than that applied by a substantial number of the tribunals it reviews. The Federal Circuit’s stricter standard manifests primarily through the intent to deceive component of inequitable conduct doctrine. For all intents and purposes the Federal Circuit has no substantive jurisprudence around the balancing component, and the materiality component is comparatively less impactful then intent to deceive. The court appears to have trouble communicating its stricter standard to lower tribunals. We offer some explanations for why this might be so, and offer some modest suggestions that might advance inequitable conduct doctrine.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 64
Keywords: Law and Courts, Federal Circuit, Patent, National Circuit, Jurisprudence, Empirical, Content Analysis, Inequitable Conduct, Unclean Hands, Fraud, Intent to Deceive, Equitable, Remedy, Patent Office, Patent System, Patent Litigation, Patent Prosecution, Duty to DiscloseAccepted Paper Series
Date posted: October 3, 2010 ; Last revised: May 31, 2012
© 2013 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This page was processed by apollo2 in 0.937 seconds