In An Intentional Tort Theory of Patents , Professor Vishnubhakat makes two arguments. First, that liability for patent infringement should only be imposed upon defendants who intentionally make, use, or sell, patented inventions. And second, that if patent infringement includes such an intent requirement, it would no longer be a strict liability tort. This response agrees with the first thesis: patent infringement should require intentional conduct of a certain sort. However, the response disagrees with the second thesis: even if patent infringement requires such intent, liability would, in my view, still be “ strict.
Many policymakers, judges, and scholars justify patent law on economic-utilitarian grounds. It is th...
139-146 Though there are criminal remedies specifically for trademark and copyright infringement...
This Note argues that the specific intent requirement for § 271(b) should be abolished. It shows tha...
This Article challenges the dogma of U.S. patent law that direct infringement is a strict liability ...
A party that causes another to infringe a patent may be liable for induced infringement. Recently, t...
The law of patents has long struggled with the status of intent in determining liability for infring...
Criminal and civil law differ greatly in their use of the element of intent. The purposes of intent ...
The now-conventional account of patent law holds that infringement is a strict liability offense, me...
It is not uncommon for multiple parties in the stream of commerce — manufacturers, distributors, end...
Accidental infringement of patent rights is a pervasive and growing problem in the Information Age. ...
In June, 2005, the United States Supreme Court set forth an inducement rule in MGM Studios, Inc. v...
The Supreme Court in Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A. clarified the requisite intent for ind...
This Article describes how and why the use of intent in trademark infringement cases has become unin...
Recently the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit dramatically change the rules fo...
Many policymakers, judges, and scholars justify patent law on economic-utilitarian grounds. It is th...
139-146 Though there are criminal remedies specifically for trademark and copyright infringement...
This Note argues that the specific intent requirement for § 271(b) should be abolished. It shows tha...
This Article challenges the dogma of U.S. patent law that direct infringement is a strict liability ...
A party that causes another to infringe a patent may be liable for induced infringement. Recently, t...
The law of patents has long struggled with the status of intent in determining liability for infring...
Criminal and civil law differ greatly in their use of the element of intent. The purposes of intent ...
The now-conventional account of patent law holds that infringement is a strict liability offense, me...
It is not uncommon for multiple parties in the stream of commerce — manufacturers, distributors, end...
Accidental infringement of patent rights is a pervasive and growing problem in the Information Age. ...
In June, 2005, the United States Supreme Court set forth an inducement rule in MGM Studios, Inc. v...
The Supreme Court in Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A. clarified the requisite intent for ind...
This Article describes how and why the use of intent in trademark infringement cases has become unin...
Recently the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit dramatically change the rules fo...
Many policymakers, judges, and scholars justify patent law on economic-utilitarian grounds. It is th...
139-146 Though there are criminal remedies specifically for trademark and copyright infringement...
This Note argues that the specific intent requirement for § 271(b) should be abolished. It shows tha...