CAFC 在 American Hoist 一案中即指出：沒有理由使用單一標準來限制
67 See Id. at 1367. (Stating that “Further, the inference must not only be based on sufficient evidence and be reasonable in light of that evidence, but it must also be the single most reasonable inference able to be drawn from the evidence to meet the clear and convincing standard.”).
68 Kappos, Fordham International IP Conference, at http://www.uspto.gov/news/speeches/2010/Fordham.jsp (Visited: 2010/07/27). (”The test says that the single most reasonable inference must be that the patentee was attempting to deceive the Patent Office.”).
69 See Id. (“However, the conflicting standards of intent in Star Scientific and Ferring continue to muddy the inequitable conduct waters.”).
70 See Id. (“We need a rule that is clear and provides a high threshold to prove intent—like the test articulated in Star Scientific—and I believe the area is ripe for en banc review.”).
71 參見黃蘭閔，「Fed_ Cir_聯席審理 Therasense 案以檢視不正行為判斷標準」，北美智權報 35 期，北美
智權網站：http://tw.naipo.com/專利知識庫/智權報總覽/tabid/358/language/zh-TW/Default.aspx (最後點閱時 間：2010 年 6 月 25 日)。
尋 求 對 詐 欺 美 國 專 利 局 的 答 案72。 而 在 Digital Control Incorporated v.
Charles Machine Works
73一案中更具體指出：在做出不正行為的判斷時需要 權衡「重大性」與「意圖」兩個要件74。也就是說當證據力已經滿足「重 大性」與「意圖」兩個要件的門檻時，法院仍需衡量決定該不正行為是否 已經具備有非難性(Culpable)，而足以支持做出專利不可行使的裁定75。換 句話說，若是一未陳報的資訊係屬重要但其證據力較弱時，則必須有對「意圖」較強的證據力以支持對不正行為的判斷。這種權衡猶如將「重大 性」與「意圖」兩個要件分別放置於天平的兩端，當一邊向下時另一邊即 向上。
舉例來說，若是法院以「客觀若非 (Objective “but for”) 」標準認定一被 隱藏資訊具有重大性時，因為此一標準的範圍較窄(因此重大性較高)，所 以證明意圖的推論可以較低；相對的法院以「合理審查員標準」認定一被 隱藏資訊具有重大性時，因為此一標準的範圍較寬(因此重大性較低)，所 以證明意圖的推論可以較高。換句話說，因為法院適用重大性與意圖的判 斷標準不同，所以在不同標準之下所做成的認定，即重大性與意圖分別跨 過其門檻時，仍必須給予法院適度的權衡裁量空間。
由下圖 2 中可以理解，在滿足「重大性」與「意圖」要件門檻的區域 中，仍存有需法院進行權衡的區域(斜綠線部分)以決定不正行為。
圖 2 Mammen 教授所製作之「重大性」與「意圖」的權衡圖76
72 See American Hoist, 725 F.2d at 1364. (“There is no reason, however, to be bound by any single standard, for the answer to any inquiry into fraud in the PTO…”).
73 437 F.3d 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
74 See Id. at 1316. (“[A] finding of inequitable conduct requires a balancing of materiality and intent.”).
75 Christian E. Mammen, supra note 44, at 1342.
76 Id. at 1344 fig.1.
關於圖 2 中所界定的權衡的區域(斜綠線部分)，容易讓人產生疑問：既 然重大性與意圖要件都已經該當，何以需要此權衡的區域?又此權衡的區 域為何為一三角型區域? Mammen 教授並未提出說明。
關於為何要有權衡要件，在 American Hoist 案中有說明：認定不正行 為下之專利的不可行使是由衡平法上的抗辯所發展而成，因而由於對專利 局詐欺的行為本身並不會使專利無效或不可行使(法無明文)，因此不正行 為需要承受司法上的裁量(Judicial Discretion)，所以需要由地方法院決定
77。
關於「權衡」要件的認定，CAFC 於 Star Scientific 案中有比較詳細的 說明：判斷不正行為可分為 Stage 1 與 Stage 2 兩個階段：
Stage 1：法院必須由 Clear and Convincing Evidence 建立重大性與意圖 的門檻水準(Threshold level)，如果其中一個要件無法建立，則不能判決有
77 American Hoist & Derrick Co. v. Sowa & Sons, Inc., 725 F.2d 1350, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 1984). (“Here, however, because an applicant's misrepresentation or failure to meet his “duty to disclose to the Office information * * * which is material” will not in itself render a patent invalid or unenforceable, see 37 CFR 1.56(a) and (d), “fraud”
may be determined only by a careful balancing of intent in light of materiality. The result of that balancing is obviously not a fact that may be found to exist or not, nor is it a mere matter of application of the law to the facts, both normal jury functions. It requires that judicial discretion be brought to bear, and the district court shall decide it”).
78 Star Scientific, Inc. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 537 F.3d 1357, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2008). (Stating that “If a threshold level of intent to deceive or materiality is not established by clear and convincing evidence, the district court does not have any discretion to exercise and cannot hold the patent unenforceable regardless of the relative equities or how it might balance them.”).
79 See Id. (“At this second stage, however, the question is no longer whether materiality and/or intent to deceive were proven with evidence that is sufficiently clear and convincing. While the facts of materiality and intent to deceive must be proven by clear and convincing evidence, the district court must balance the substance of those now-proven facts and all the equities of the case to determine whether the severe penalty of unenforceability should be imposed. It is this balancing that is committed to the district court's discretion.”).
同，例如專利申請人未揭露的資訊是關於一份審查意見書(Office Action)，