Share/E-mail This Story

Email This



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.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    identicon
    Sherman, Jan 16th, 2008 @ 5:40pm

    Anti Trust ?

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

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 16th, 2008 @ 8:29pm

    Re: Anti Trust ?

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

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    identicon
    Quack quack, Jan 16th, 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

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    identicon
    Pseudonym, Jan 16th, 2008 @ 10:23pm

    But...

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

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 17th, 2008 @ 4:29pm

    Re: Re: Re: Anti Trust ?

    involving two or more parties ?

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

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This