Different Rules for Different Owners: Does a Non-Competing Patentee have a Right to Exclude? A Study of Post-eBay Cases
AbstractCourts have traditionally granted injunctive relief ‘automatically’ upon finding infringement of valid patents on the basis that it is the essence of the patent right to exclude others. But the U.S. Supreme Court signalled a change in 2006 when they vacated the Federal Court’s order granting injunction against eBay for willfully infringing valid patents of MercExchange. The ruling comes at a time when the debate on what have pejoratively been called ‘patent trolls’ have taken centre stage. This paper examines the issues connected to patent trolls and analyses cases post-eBay to study the effect that eBay has had on patent infringement litigation. The analysis shows that the economic status of the patentee and the nature of the patent itself can adversely affect the exclusive rights granted by the patent. This is because non-competing patentees and a patent which covers only a small component of the overall product are less likely to obtain an injunctive relief. Denial of injunctive relief results in judicially-instituted compulsory licensing of patents which dramatically scales down the bargaining power of the patentee during licensing fee negotiations. Wrongly being adjudged a ‘troll’ can have dramatic effects on the incentive for investment and innovation. Consequently, the paper argues that acceptance of the concept of patent ‘troll’ is likely to result in more harm to innovation that otherwise.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by Centre for Competition Policy, University of East Anglia in its series Working Papers with number 07-18.
Length: 58 pages
Date of creation: Sep 2007
Date of revision:
Patents; patentees; right to exclude; patent trolls; compulsory licensing;
Find related papers by JEL classification:
- K19 - Law and Economics - - Basic Areas of Law - - - Other
- K20 - Law and Economics - - Regulation and Business Law - - - General
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
- NEP-ALL-2007-10-20 (All new papers)
- NEP-INO-2007-10-20 (Innovation)
- NEP-IPR-2007-10-20 (Intellectual Property Rights)
- NEP-LAW-2007-10-20 (Law & Economics)
You can help add them by filling out this form.
reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.Access and download statisticsgeneral information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Cheryl Whittkaer) The email address of this maintainer does not seem to be valid anymore. Please ask Cheryl Whittkaer to update the entry or send us the correct address.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.