Patent Hoarder Pitting Competitors Against Each Other For Injunction Rights

from the now-look-what-you've-done dept

One of the more important Supreme Court decisions concerning patents was 2006's MercExchange ruling, where the Supreme Court announced that courts shouldn't automatically grant an injunction against a company if it was found to be violating patents. This made a lot of sense, as many patent hoarders who produced no actual goods, would use the threat of an injunction (which could completely kill a business) to force the company to settle. However, the court recognized that in some cases (certainly not all), an injunction would do much more harm than good, and wasn't called for. This was especially true in cases where the patent holder wasn't making any actual products, since an injunction wouldn't actually clear up any competitive wrong -- it would just deny the market the ability to get the product. Of course, it hasn't taken long for some patent hoarders to come up with a rather ingenious (if ridiculous) way around this. It's all pointed out in a post by the Patent Troll Tracker who details how a patent hoarding firm played two competitors off of each other to grant one the rights to get an injunction on the other.

Here's how the plan works. First, the patent hoarding firm, Rembrant, sues two competitors in the contact lens space: Bausch & Lomb and Ciba. Then, it works out a settlement deal with one of those two firms -- in this case, B&L. However, part of that settlement (beyond some sort of licensing agreement) is to hand over the patent's injunction rights to B&L, while keeping the actual patent and everything else associated with it in the hands of Rembrant. Then, what you have is a patent infringement lawsuit against Ciba, just like before. Except, since B&L is a practicing competitor rather than just a patent hoarder, the company can ask for an injunction. In effect, as Ciba notes in its own filing on the matter, Rembrant sued the two competitors and then offered one a big carrot not just to settle, but to flip sides in the court case itself in order to use the very patent it had been sued over against a competitor. You have to imagine that Thomas Jefferson didn't see this coming when he laid out the details of the original US patent system.
Hide this

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: injunctions, patents
Companies: bausch & lomb, ciba, rembrant


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • identicon
    Sherman, 16 Jan 2008 @ 5:40pm

    Anti Trust ?

    Looks like a duck,
    walks like a duck ...

    link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 16 Jan 2008 @ 8:29pm

      Re: Anti Trust ?

      The patent system exists specifically to create monopolies (another name for trusts).

      link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Quack quack, 16 Jan 2008 @ 9:30pm

        Re: Re: Anti Trust ?

        "The patent system exists specifically to create monopolies (another name for trusts)."

        involving two or more parties ?

        collusion

        link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2008 @ 4:29pm

          Re: Re: Re: Anti Trust ?

          involving two or more parties ?

          Yes. That's what "anti-trust" laws were about. Read here.

          link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Pseudonym, 16 Jan 2008 @ 10:23pm

    But...

    ...is it collusion if one party has a gun held to their head? More like extortion.

    link to this | view in chronology ]


Follow Techdirt
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Discord

The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...

Loading...
Recent Stories

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.