On May 29, 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court declined “Saint-Gobain SA’s appeal seeking a higher standard of proof in patent cases where the allegedly infringing product is also covered by a patent, the Court’s latest rejection of the idea that evidentiary standards should vary based on specific facts.” This article details out different opinions from attorneys following the case and concluded that most attorneys felt that the “Federal Circuit made the right call in declining to complicate patent litigation by establishing different standards of proof based on certain fact patterns, especially because the scenario in the case occurs very rarely.” Finnegan partner Erika H. Arner said, “Obviousness and the doctrine of equivalents are both such fact-based inquiries that it would be difficult to establish a bright-line rule for when heightened standards should apply. The Federal Circuit majority got it right. There is no perfect solution, I don’t think it would be possible to come up with a precise test.” Ms. Arner also stated, “Given that difficulty and the need for uniformity in patent law, it makes sense that the standard to prove infringement should always be a preponderance of the evidence, rather than trying to carve out rigid rules for different factual scenarios.”
