Intent in Patent Infringement

68 FLA. L. REV. F. 72 (2017)

8 Pages Posted: 19 Dec 2017

See all articles by Patrick Russell Goold

Patrick Russell Goold

City University London, The City Law School

Date Written: 2017

Abstract

Response to Saurabh Vishnubhakat, An Intentional Tort Theory of Patents, 68 FLA. L. REV. 571 (2016).

In An Intentional Tort Theory of Patents, Professor Vishnubhakat makes two arguments. First, that liability for patent infringement should only be imposed upon defendants who intentionally make, use, or sell, patented inventions. And second, that if patent infringement includes such an intent requirement, it would no longer be a strict liability tort. This response agrees with the first thesis: patent infringement should require intentional conduct of a certain sort. However, the response disagrees with the second thesis: even if patent infringement requires such intent, liability would, in my view, still be “strict.”

Suggested Citation

Goold, Patrick Russell, Intent in Patent Infringement (2017). 68 FLA. L. REV. F. 72 (2017), Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3088195

Patrick Russell Goold (Contact Author)

City University London, The City Law School ( email )

London, EC1V OHB
United Kingdom

Do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on SSRN?

Paper statistics

Downloads
51
Abstract Views
416
rank
460,520
PlumX Metrics