Patently-O Bits and Bytes by Juvan Bonni

Recent Headlines in the IP World:

Commentary and Journal Articles:

New Job Postings on Patently-O:

4 thoughts on “Patently-O Bits and Bytes by Juvan Bonni

  1. 1

    Re the 7th Cir. “Amici Curiae Brief of 66 Law, Economics, Business, and Medical Professors in Support of Plaintiffs-Appellants”
    This is arguing an anti-trust violation by alleged building of a “patent thicket” around a product.
    Years ago planting a “patent thicket” was argued by SCM against Xerox in the 2d Cir., and it lost.
    [Of course, the patents being planted need to be validly patentable versus each other as well as over other art.]

    1. 1.1

      Does not the inoculation to anti-trust of enforcing A patent necessarily extend to enforcing a collection of patents?**

      ** all things being equal, and there being nothing nefarious outside of the collection itself.

      1. 1.1.1

        Yes they should be just as enforceable, assuming the multiple patents were their own and valid and not collected from potential competitors in a monopolization scheme. But there have been historical past times when there was what can be argued to be FTC staff antirust theory overreach.


          It does not matter if collected — that’s one of the express perks of our system in making the property to be completely alienable.

Comments are closed.