ESP Wiki is looking for moderators and active contributors!

Difference between revisions of "The value of promises and estoppel defences"

(About estoppel: rm About)
Line 6: Line 6:
 
If an alleged infringer can show that the patent holder has harmed the alleged infringer by waiting to assert a patent, the patent holder's claims for back damages are estopped by laches, and the alleged infringer is not liable. But unfortunately, this is not easy to show in court, and the patent holder can still seek an injunction.
 
If an alleged infringer can show that the patent holder has harmed the alleged infringer by waiting to assert a patent, the patent holder's claims for back damages are estopped by laches, and the alleged infringer is not liable. But unfortunately, this is not easy to show in court, and the patent holder can still seek an injunction.
  
==About estoppel==
+
==Estoppel==
  
 
Some say that "estoppel", in [[USA|US]] law, would make [[patent promises]] valid even after sale of the patent to another company.
 
Some say that "estoppel", in [[USA|US]] law, would make [[patent promises]] valid even after sale of the patent to another company.

Revision as of 15:41, 22 October 2010

Laches

Some countries' legal traditions include an equitable defense called "laches".

If an alleged infringer can show that the patent holder has harmed the alleged infringer by waiting to assert a patent, the patent holder's claims for back damages are estopped by laches, and the alleged infringer is not liable. But unfortunately, this is not easy to show in court, and the patent holder can still seek an injunction.

Estoppel

Some say that "estoppel", in US law, would make patent promises valid even after sale of the patent to another company.

This question is often asked about Microsoft's patents on .Net and C#. Microsoft gives a promise not to sue, but hte promise says: "This is a personal promise directly from Microsoft to you".

The following is a quote from the SFLC audio show. The two lawyers were talking about copyright and the public domain, not patents, so the context might be different for patents. With that said:

Aaron Williamson: ...estoppel is an equitable defence which basically says it would not be fair to assert or to find infringement in this case. ...or to, essentially, find damages or whatever. So it's not... estoppel is typically up to the court to, sort of, weigh the fairness of the situation, and it's not... it, sort of, changes case by case.
Karen Sandler: Yeh, it's not necessarily that... It's just a defence, is the thing. So you don't necessarily want to wind up relying on estoppel, but it is an effective thing to talk about, and we do talk about it a lot, and rely on it somewhat, but it's just a matter of... In part it's just, you can think about it sort of as like a fairness argument...[1]

External links

References