Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=939413
 
 

Footnotes (212)



 


 



Constructive Nonvolition in Patent Law and the Problem of Insufficient Thought Control


Kevin Emerson Collins


Washington University in Saint Louis - School of Law


2007 Wis. L. Rev. 759 (2007)
Indiana Legal Studies Research Paper No. 65

Abstract:     
Strict liability in patent law is too strict. A constructive-nonvolition exemption from liability for patent infringement must be recognized to prevent inefficient and unfair overprotection of patentable inventions.

Although loosely modeled on the nonvolitional conduct exemption in other strict liability regimes, constructive nonvolition does not turn solely on the defendant's lack of physiological control over his body. It focuses more broadly on the cost that a defendant must incur in order to either avoid infringing a patent or reduce the benefit that he receives from using the patented technology. If a defendant must avoid using either prior art technology or technology entirely unrelated to the patented technology in order to avoid using or benefiting from a validly patented technology, then the defendant's deliberate act of using of the patented technology should be deemed constructively nonvolitional, i.e. legally equivalent to a nonvolitional act. If the defendant's non-infringing choice set is constrained in this manner, then a strict liability regime strictly construed that allows the patentee to control all uses of a patented technology results in patent protection that is both inefficient and unfair.

Having laid out the analytical framework, this article brings the newly minted concept of constructive nonvolition to bear on claims that recite inventive, reflexive acts of thinking. The patent claim that was recently at issue before the Supreme Court in Laboratory Corp. v. Metabolite Laboratories demonstrates that the PTO allows inventors to propertize simple acts of human reasoning that the public of thinkers cannot control. This article argues that the patentee in Laboratory Corp. was the beneficiary of economically and constitutionally overbroad patent protection because the lower courts failed to implement a constructive-nonvolition exemption from strict liability for patent infringement.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 70

Accepted Paper Series


Download This Paper

Date posted: February 15, 2007 ; Last revised: June 27, 2013

Suggested Citation

Collins, Kevin Emerson, Constructive Nonvolition in Patent Law and the Problem of Insufficient Thought Control. 2007 Wis. L. Rev. 759 (2007); Indiana Legal Studies Research Paper No. 65. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=939413

Contact Information

Kevin Emerson Collins (Contact Author)
Washington University in Saint Louis - School of Law ( email )
Campus Box 1120
St. Louis, MO 63130
United States
Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 696
Downloads: 90
Download Rank: 168,483
Footnotes:  212

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo1 in 0.235 seconds