An Estoppel Doctrine for Patented Standards

An Estoppel Doctrine for Patented Standards


Technical standards, such as interface protocols or file formats, are extremely important in the “network industries” that add so much value to the world economy today. Under some circumstances, the assertion of patent rights against established industry standards can seriously disrupt these network industries. We have in mind two particularly disruptive tactics: (1) the “snake in the grass,” whereby a patentee intentionally keeps a patent “quiet” while a standard is being designed or adopted, and then later, after the standard is entrenched, asserts the patent widely in an attempt to capitalize on its popularity; (2) the “bait and switch” ploy where a patentee encourages adoption by offering royalty-free use of standard-related patents, and then, after the standard has gone into widespread use, begins to enforce its patents against adopters of the standard.

 

PDF

More in this Issue

Against Moral Rights

This Article attacks the foundations of moral rights scholarship, law, and theory. The author focuses on the moral right of “integrity,” called “the heart of the moral rights doctrine,” which allows an artist to prevent modification, and in some cases, destruction of his art work. Her argument is that moral rights actually endanger art in […]

Enterprise Liability: Reviewing and Revitalizing Liability for Corporate Groups

This Comment explores enterprise liability as it applies to corporate groups. It argues that the doctrine of limited liability, which shields a corporation’s shareholders from the corporation’s debts, is problematic from both a normative and an efficiency perspective when applied to the parent/subsidiary context, and in particular to preventing parent liability for a subsidiary’s mass […]

The Federal Courts as a Franchise: Rethinking the Justifications for Federal Question Jurisdiction

This article provides a critical analysis of the view, dominant among courts and scholars, that the lower federal courts’ jurisdiction to adjudicate cases involving questions of federal law can be justified on the ground that federal judges are more likely than their state court counterparts to provide evenhanded, uniform, expert adjudication of federal law. It […]