I was a bit puzzled by part of Newegg's patent case history:
Remarkably, the judge overseeing the case ruled during trial that the jury wouldn't be allowed to make a decision about Newegg's arguments that the patent was invalid. That line of reasoning—that Soverain's patents were bogus to begin with—would become the basis of Newegg's appeal.
It was a US case, and the US has strong precedents for Jury Nullification, in criminal law, at least. Are there particular exemptions in patent law that allow the apparent prevention of Jury Nullification, or is there otherwise precedence that would prevent a jury from ruling based on the lack of apparent validity of the patent/law (the common application of nullification) and instead only rule whether they violated the patent, yes or no? Or does Jury Nullification not exist in patent law in the same way it does in criminal law?
I'm aware a judge can more or less tell a jury anything and they'll believe that's how it works, but I'm wondering if this is a thing that would actually stand up to proper scrutiny.