Academic journal article William and Mary Law Review

Scope

Academic journal article William and Mary Law Review

Scope

Article excerpt

ABSTRACT

Virtually every significant legal doctrine in IP is either about whether the plaintiff has a valid IP right that the law will recognize (validity); whether the defendant's conduct violates that right (infringement); or whether the defendant is somehow privileged to violate that right (defenses). IP regimes tend to separate doctrines in these three legal categories relatively strictly. They apply different burdens of proof and persuasion to infringement and validity. In many cases they ask different actors to decide one doctrine but not the other. And even where none of that is true, the nature of IP law is to categorize an argument in order to apply the proper rules for that argument.

The result of this separation is that parties treat IP rights "like a nose of wax, which may be turned and twisted in any direction." When infringement is at issue, IP owners tout the breadth of their rights, while accused infringers seek to cabin them within narrow bounds. When it comes to validity, however, the parties reverse their positions, with IP owners emphasizing the narrowness of their rights in order to avoid having those rights held invalid and accused infringers arguing the reverse. Because of the separation between validity, infringement, and defenses, it is often possible for a party to successfully argue that an IP right means one thing in one context and something very different in another. And courts will not necessarily detect the problem because they are thinking of only the precise legal issue before them. The result is a number of IP doctrines that simply make no sense to an outsider.

The culprit is simple, but fundamental: IP regimes largely lack an integrated procedure for deciding the proper extent of an IP right. Without some way of assessing the breadth of an IP right that considers validity, infringement, and defenses together, courts will always be prone to make mistakes in applying any one of the doctrines separately. In this Article, we suggest that IP regimes need a process for determining the scope of an IP right.

Scope is not merely validity, and it is not merely infringement. Rather, it refers to the range of things the IP right lawfully protects against competition. Only by evaluating scope in a single, integrated fashion can courts avoid the nose of wax problem that has grown endemic in IP law. Scope is, quite simply, the fundamental question that underlies everything else in IP law, but which courts rarely think about expressly.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
I.   IP LITIGATION: A PROCESS DIVIDED
     A. The Scope of IP Rights
     B. Why Scope Matters Now
II.  THE PROBLEMS WITH SEPARATION
     A. Gaps in the Fabric of IP Scope
     B. Gaps Exist in the Fabric of IP for a Number of
        Reasons
        1. Different Decisionmakers
        2. Different Burdens of Proof
        3. A Reluctance to Invalidate IP Rights
        4. Strategic Behavior
     C. IP Doctrines and the Nose of Wax
        1. Copyright
        2. Patent
        3. Trademark
        4. Design Patent
III. TOWARDS AN INTEGRATED DOCTRINE OF IP SCOPE
     A. The Need for an Integrated Scope Determination
     B. Markman as a Scope Proceeding
     C. Adapting the Scope Proceeding for Other IP Rights
     D. Alternatives to a Scope Proceeding
CONCLUSION

INTRODUCTION

Intellectual property (IP) law doctrines fall into three basic categories: validity, infringement, and defenses. Virtually every significant legal doctrine in IP is either about whether the plaintiff has a valid IP right that the law will recognize (validity); whether what the defendant did violates that right (infringement); or whether the defendant is somehow privileged to violate that right (defenses). (1)

IP regimes tend to separate doctrines in these three legal categories relatively strictly. They apply different burdens of proof and persuasion to infringement and validity. In many cases they ask different actors to decide one doctrine but not the other. …

Search by... Author
Show... All Results Primary Sources Peer-reviewed

Oops!

An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.