ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Patent Law Blogs -> Philip Brooks’ Patent Infringement Updates

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

Patent Law

: Philip Brooks’ Patent Infringement Updates

Detecting Patent Infringement

By Philip Brooks

ADVERTISEMENTS

Peter A. Elyjiw of the Toronto office of Smart & Biggar wrote the above titled article on January 16, 2008.  The following is an excerpt from this article:

Most people are aware that there is no such thing as a ?patent police?. The duty of monitoring the marketplace for infringement of a patent falls on the shoulders of the patent holder. If this duty is not fulfilled, then the patent cannot be used to stop others from making, using or selling the relevant invention, because the identity of the ?others? will not be known.

Monitoring the marketplace for infringement typically involves a non-trivial investigation effort on the part of the patent holder. The reason is that infringers rarely trumpet their infringing activities. What is not widely appreciated, however, is that the amount, complexity and cost of such investigation can vary significantly depending upon the nature of the invention that is claimed in a patent.

In some fields, there may be no getting around the practical difficulty of detecting patent infringement. For example, patents for computer-based inventions are often directed to the inner workings of computer hardware or software, which may not be readily apparent from the operation of an infringing device. Reverse-engineering competitors? products may provide insight as to whether infringement is likely. Indeed, companies whose primary purpose is to reverse-engineer products (e.g. Ottawa-based Chipworks) have arisen, likely in part to satisfy this need. The cost of reverse-engineering, which may be significant, might be justifiable as likely paling in comparison to the cost of doing nothing, in terms of potential lost revenues resulting from an infringing competitor product. At least in the case of software, however, many end user licences now expressly bar reverse-engineering. Perhaps as a consequence, the number of patent applications directed to the graphical user interface (?GUI?) of computer-based products has increased in recent years, with the rationale being that GUI features are more easily spotted in competing products.

Read the full article here.

Full post as published by Philip Brooks’ Patent Infringement Updates on September 15, 2008 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Lawsuits and Settlements

Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.0023 secs (from cache 10/31/26 14:43:13)