Patent Law | Expert Legal Commentary
May 12, 2009
Rothman v. Target: Deferring to Jury Finding of Obviousness, But Not of Inequitable Conduct
Rothman v. Target Corp.
By
Yuri Mikulka and Spyros J. Lazaris
In Rothman v. Target Corp., 556 F.3d 1310 (Fed. Cir. 2009), the Federal Circuit upheld a district court’s refusal to set aside a jury finding that the plaintiff’s patent was invalid due to obviousness, but reversed the trial court on its finding of inequitable conduct by the prosecuting attorney. The court showed high deference to the jury on the former issue, but determined that “no reasonable jury” could have found inequitable conduct on the latter issue. Arguably, the court’s holding could be construed as inappropriately broadening the concept of obviousness, though it does make a point of protecting the good faith efforts of prosecuting attorneys.
To continue reading this article, subscribe now
It's FREE and only takes seconds
Image Credit: Rothman v. Target Corp./No. 2008-1375/U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
