This website uses cookies. By using this website, you agree to our Cookie Policy.
Jarkesy Ruling May Redefine Jury Role in Patent Fraud
Reprinted from: Law360 | August 9, 2024Cadwalader’s Intellectual Property team – special counsel Michael Powell and associates John Augelli and Michael Russo, with contributions from partner Danielle Tully – have authored an article, “Jarkesy Ruling May Redefine Jury Role In Patent Fraud,” which appeared in Law360 today.
Though the Supreme Court’s recent decision in SEC v. Jarkesy specifically addresses the SEC’s enforcement authority, it touches on fundamental principles impacting many areas of law. One area that may not yet be appreciated is inequitable conduct, also known as fraud on the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
Jarkesy provides an opening for litigants to upend the status quo that judges, not juries, decide the entirety of this defense. Though inequitable conduct’s remedy arises historically from equity, its factual underpinnings have come to closely track common law fraud, which Jarkesy explains is a legal question traditionally decided by juries. As the Cadwalader team discusses, Jarkesy thus breathes life into arguments that juries should address inequitable conduct’s underlying facts—with the question of the appropriate remedy being left to judges. Historical analogues support such an approach and, in fact, many courts already rely on advisory jury verdicts when adjudicating inequitable conduct.
Read it here.
