Boundaries of patent infringement law

In the modern global environment of rapid technological change and quickly evolving business practices, new issues frequently arise that challenge the operation of patent law. Understanding how patent law operates in this global environment is vital because the patent system plays an important role in the way new technology is developed and brought to market. The accepted rationale for the patent system is that it is an economic tool to incentivise innovation and thereby enhance social welfare. It follows, then, that if patent law handles emergent issues (or is likely to handle them) in ways that conflict with its underlying rationale, the development of new technology may be hindered. Six diverse emergent issues that challenge the operation of patent law in Australia are examined in this thesis. They take two forms: technological, originating from development of new technology; and legal, resulting from recent case law or legislative amendment (either foreign or domestic). Technological and legal issues arise frequently and it is impossible to evaluate them all. Thus, this thesis focuses specifically on issues that are relevant to aspects of Australian patent infringement law and are amenable to doctrinal legal analysis and qualitative economic reasoning. The aspects of patent infringement law examined are: standing to initiate infringement actions; infringement by exploitation; secondary infringement; innocent infringement; and false representations about patents. In addition, to give perspective on reasoning in this study and, in some circumstances to identify solutions to defects in the law, analysis of each issue also involves a foreign comparative law component. This study demonstrates that many of the emergent issues examined are not, or are unlikely to be, dealt with under current Australian patent law in a manner consistent with the justifications that underpin it. Accordingly, various refinements to the law are proposed to ensure the Australian patent system is kept up to date.

[1]  William W. Fisher THEORIES OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY , 2000 .

[2]  M. Heller,et al.  Can Patents Deter Innovation? The Anticommons in Biomedical Research , 1998, Science.

[3]  Timothy Denny Greene,et al.  'All Substantial Rights': Towards Sensible Patent Licensee Standing , 2012 .

[4]  Jason A. Rantanen An Objective View of Fault in Patent Infringement , 2010 .

[5]  C. I. Jones,et al.  Measuring the Social Return to R&D , 1997 .

[6]  P. Drahoš A philosophy of intellectual property , 1996 .

[7]  J. Schumpeter,et al.  The Theory of Economic Development , 2017 .

[8]  J. Liddicoat Re-Evaluating Innocent Infringement in Australia: Patent Numbers and Virtual Marking , 2014 .

[9]  Mark A. Lemley,et al.  Divided Infringement Claims , 2004 .

[10]  J. Gans,et al.  Intellectual Property Rights: A Grant of Monopoly or an Aid to Competition? , 2004 .

[11]  Arnold Plant,et al.  The Economic Theory Concerning Patents for Inventions , 1934 .

[12]  W. K. Robinson No 'Direction' Home: An Alternative Approach to Joint Infringement , 2012 .

[13]  Jeroen G. Kuilman,et al.  Industrial and Corporate Change , 2013 .

[14]  Robert P. Merges,et al.  Justifying Intellectual Property , 2011 .

[15]  Ann Monotti,et al.  Australian Intellectual Property Law , 2008 .

[16]  M. Krzyzanowska,et al.  Off-label use of cancer drugs: a benchmark is established. , 2013, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[17]  Lawrence B. Solum,et al.  The Interpretation-Construction Distinction in Patent Law , 2013 .

[18]  Mark A. Lemley,et al.  Intellectual Property in the New Technological Age , 1997 .

[19]  Alan J. Devlin,et al.  The Misunderstood Function of Disclosure in Patent Law , 2010 .

[20]  R. W. Hansen,et al.  The price of innovation: new estimates of drug development costs. , 2003, Journal of health economics.

[21]  E. Kitch,et al.  The Nature and Function of the Patent System , 1977, The Journal of Law and Economics.

[22]  E. Mansfield,et al.  Imitation Costs and Patents: An Empirical Study , 1981 .

[23]  Henry E. Smith,et al.  Intellectual Property as Property: Delineating Entitlements in Information , 2007 .

[24]  F HornickJohn 3D Printing and the Future (or Demise) of Intellectual Property , 2014 .

[25]  D. Brean Asserting Patents to Combat Infringement via 3D Printing: It's No 'Use' , 2012 .

[26]  Christine Critchley,et al.  The Innovation Pool in Biotechnology: the Role of Patents in Facilitating Innovation, Occasional Paper No.8 , 2014 .

[27]  Stefano Trento,et al.  INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS AND ECONOMIC GROWTH , 2007 .

[28]  Carl Shapiro,et al.  Navigating the Patent Thicket: Cross Licenses, Patent Pools, and Standard Setting , 2000, Innovation Policy and the Economy.

[29]  Alan B. Bennett,et al.  Freedom to Operate: The Preparations , 2007 .

[30]  Carl J. Dahlman The Problem of Externality , 1979, The Journal of Law and Economics.

[31]  C. Bodkin Patent Law in Australia , 2018 .

[32]  Eric Maskin,et al.  Sequential Innovation, Patents, and Imitation , 2000 .

[33]  Ann L. Monotti Liability for Joint Infringement of a Method Patent under Australian Law , 2013 .

[34]  Kenneth W. Dam The Economic Underpinnings of Patent Law , 1994, The Journal of Legal Studies.

[35]  J. A. Goldstein,et al.  Patent pools and standard setting in diagnostic genetics , 2005, Nature Biotechnology.

[36]  L. Truong After Bmc Resources, Inc. V. Paymentech, L.P.: Conspiratorial Infringement as a Means of Holding Joint Infringers Liable , 2008 .

[37]  Bronwyn H Hall Patents and patent policy , 2007 .

[38]  K. McKernan,et al.  DREAMing of a patent-free human genome for clinical sequencing , 2013, Nature Biotechnology.

[39]  James Bessen,et al.  The Direct Costs from NPE Disputes , 2012 .

[40]  Josh Lerner,et al.  Patenting in the Shadow of Competitors , 1995, The Journal of Law and Economics.

[41]  Thomas F. Cotter Is this Conflict Really Necessary? Resolving an Ostensible Conflict between Patent Law and Federal Trademark Law , 1999 .

[42]  Mark A. Lemley The Myth of the Sole Inventor , 2011 .

[43]  J. Kemp,et al.  The Concept of Law , 1962 .