Many Conference attendees have been on opposite sides over the years, but the experts gathered that day were in concerted agreement that the patent landscape has been carpet-bombed with confusion caused by the Courts, the Congress and the PTO. Despite their collective confusion regarding the roiled patent landscape, as Steve Brachmann and Gene Quinn noted in their joint summary of the proceedings, there were a number of key issues where despite confusion imposed by DC decision makers, general agreement was the order of the day. The consensus reached by the patent experts in attendance included; frustration with the misleading patent troll narrative that wrongfully claims all patents are “bad patents”, the persistent push of the efficient infringer lobby for comprehensive patent litigation reform despite the fact that patent litigation continues to decrease, and that unanimous view that patents are property, which is after all what the Patent Act declares in 35 U.S.C. 261.
There was no philosophical discussion about liability vs. property legal theory. There was no debate about the “public rights” doctrine the PTAB and the Federal Circuit have dredged-up from juridical obscurity. On the contrary there were repeated references to the appropriateness of analogizing patents to real etate, which the Supreme Court itself has done well over 100 years. Even in the America of today no judge would allow homeowners to cohabitate with squatters, but a patent is different.You are downloading TubeMate YouTube Downloader Latest APK v2.3.8 (707). This app is the fastest and most famous YouTube downloader. TubeMate app free download here! You can find and download every versions of this apps and never miss some excellent functions. Despite the fact that the Supreme Court has repeatedly said a patent in land caries the same rights as a patent in an invention, the patent owner today must come to terms with the reality that exclusivity no longer exists as one of the bundle of rights thanks to eBay v. MercExchange.
In the circumstances, court-ordered rental is equivalent to the compulsory licensing now automatically imposed by the lower court lemmings following Justice Kennedy’s concurrent eBay opinion while ignoring the common sense former rule that recognized that the owner of an exclusive right ought to get an injunction from a court that orders no further infringement of that exclusive right. Without such an injunction, which would just confirm what the patent grant itself already allegedly commands, exactly how does a patent confer an exclusive right? It doesn’t, and that is the reality facing patent owners who are forced to share their exclusive rights, which is as ridiculous as it sounds.