Supreme Court To Determine If Patent Holders Can Shake Down Entire Supply Chain
from the more-judicial-patent-reform dept
While Congress continues to fight over patent reform (often missing the bigger issues for those that the lobbyists are most interested in), it's been the Supreme Court that's been doing its best to bring some sanity back to the patent system. After ignoring patent law as being a boring "commercial" dispute for years, the Supreme Court finally realized a few years ago that the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (that handles patent cases) had basically redefined patent law over the last few years, creating much of the mess we're in today. Suddenly, the Court started taking a bunch of patent cases -- and almost every time it slapped down CAFC and brought some common sense back to the patent system. Of course, there's still a lot more to do on that front, and apparently the Supreme Court agrees. It's now taken yet another patent case that could have major ramifications.This case, officially between LG and Quanta, really concerns the question of how many times patent holders can get a cut of any component found violating a patent. Currently, patent holders will often sue up and down the food chain. So, if you happen to have a patent on a component within a motor that is used in automobile wipers, you could sue the motor maker, the wiper maker and the auto manufacturer -- and get all three to pay, even though the same product is used throughout the supply chain. This case will look at whether or not it makes sense to allow for that type of double, triple or quadruple dipping. Patently O has a good summary of the case, pointing out that it's effectively asking if the concept of the "first sale doctrine," which applies to copyrights, also applies to patents. If the Supreme Court follows its recent trend in overturning CAFC, this could have a big impact on a lot of patent cases. For example, it would entirely derail NTP's latest patent suits. In that case, NTP forced RIM into licensing its (questionable and likely to be invalidated) patents, and is now suing all the service providers who offer RIM's Blackberry -- effectively double dipping. Once again, it's nice to see both the sudden interest in patent law -- and what often appears to be very clear thinking on the part of the Supreme Court on the issue.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: patent reform, supply chain, supreme court
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Thank God.
Now we can only hope that the Supreme Court doesn't stumble along the way. I guess we should have at least a little faith. They are SUPREME, after all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here's to hope
Then again, in a few years, the high tide line will be somewhere in Iowa. Never mind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
morons
Why not just say "We, people of the United States, do not want patent system anymore" and then change the US Constitution.
I will gladly give up my only patent if all patents are abolished.
But they just want to abolish patents for little guys and keep them in force for the big crooks.
This is called "patent fairness"
fairness my ass...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: morons
Are we all too busy worrying about paying our Mortgage/Car/Student Loan/Credit Card Payments? Is that the idea???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: morons
We, the people, get one vote per person to vote for the seats in the House of Representatives. That's it.
Electors are appointed by state legislatures and take care of voting for the Senate seats and Executive branch.
The Executive appoints the Judges of the Supreme Court.
Also, the runner up in presidential elections should be the elected VP. I don't really know how or when the bundling of President and VP on a ticket truly started.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: morons
Since the House of Representatives recently passed the draconian patent "reform" bill I assume that the general population no longer needs strong patent protection for american inventions, right ?
O.K. with me, as long as the average Joe Smith is happy...
But the thing is Joe won't be happy when the only thing left in this country - its inventive culture, is gone and US becomes a third-rate country...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: morons
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I am a troll
Just like Dean Kamen or Thomas Edison etc., only smaller
Evil evil patent trolls...
They stole all the bread from your dinner table and drank all the water in your house...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bad case
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
you troll you suck.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Supreme Court To Determine WHETHER Patent Holders
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tax
That moves the competition to who can make best use of the ideas in products that they bring to market and sell those products most competitively.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]