Copyright (c) 2007 George Mason Law Review
George Mason Law Review
CASENOTE: PERMANENT INJUNCTION, A REMEDY BY ANY OTHER NAME IS PATENTLY NOT THE SAME: HOW EBAY V. MERCEXCHANGE AFFECTS THE PATENT RIGHT OF NON-PRACTICING ENTITIES
14 Geo. Mason L. Rev. 1035
Miranda Jones *
Intellectual property plays an undeniably important role in the United States economy. 1 Economists estimate that the United States' intellectual property today "is worth between $ 5 trillion and $ 5.5 trillion, equivalent to about 45 percent of U.S. GDP and greater than the GDP of any other nation in the world." 2 The recognition that intellectual property was an overlooked asset of tremendous value led to corporations shifting focus from land and material resources to intellectual property resources, including patents. 3 This recognition also led to the rise of business entities focused solely on acquiring under-valued patents 4 and realizing the value of those patents through licensing and enforcement of the patent right, the right to exclude. 5 These entities are often referred to as non-practicing entities ("NPEs"), 6 or more pejoratively as patent trolls. 7 Since the value of a patent rests on the enforcement of the right to exclude, a patent owner that cannot efficiently or effectively enforce the patent right holds an under-valued, or perhaps even valueless, patent. 8 NPEs purchase patents from inventors, allowing them to profit from the value of their inventions and also providing them with an important source of funding for further research and development. 9 Arguably, this transaction between inventor and NPE can be viewed as a division of cooperative labor, allowing each entity to do what it does best, whether that is inventing or enforcing patent rights. 10
The dispute, and ...
If you are interested in obtaining a lexis.com® ID and Password, please contact us at 1-(800)-227-4908 or visit us at http://www.lexisnexis.com/.