Digital Patent Infringement in an Era of 3D Printing

T. Holbrook, Lucas S. Osborn
{"title":"Digital Patent Infringement in an Era of 3D Printing","authors":"T. Holbrook, Lucas S. Osborn","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2483550","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The digital revolution has now moved beyond music and video files. A person can now translate three-dimensional objects into digital files and, at the press of a button, recreate those items via a 3D printer or similar device. Just as digitization placed pressure on the copyright system, so will these digital computer-aided design (CAD) files stress the patent system. Patents directed to physical objects can now have their value appropriated — not by the transfer of physical embodiments — but by the making, selling, and transferring of CAD files designed to print the invention. We term this phenomenon digital patent infringement. We explore the ways the patent system can respond to protect patent owners against the appropriation of their inventions via these digital files. First, we explore whether indirect infringement doctrines sufficiently protect patent holders against these CAD files. Given the nature of likely accused indirect infringers, we conclude, contrary to earlier literature, that these doctrines likely are not up to the task. Second, we offer novel theories of direct “digital” patent infringement based on the CAD files alone. We consider whether offers to sell and sales of these files should constitute direct patent infringement. Because such commercial activity is an appropriation of the economic value of the patented invention, we believe the law should recognize such an infringement theory. Next, rejecting the prior assumptions of the literature, we provocatively explore whether the CAD files alone should be viewed as infringement for making the patented device, given the de minimis effort it takes to create the item via a 3D printer or related device. As a technological matter, the line between digital and tangible has eroded to the point where one could view these files as infringement. As a legal and policy matter, however, such expansion of patent infringement liability could have significant chilling effects on other actors and incentives, giving us pause in extending liability in this context.","PeriodicalId":142986,"journal":{"name":"Law & Society: Private Law eJournal","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-11-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"38","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Law & Society: Private Law eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2483550","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 38

Abstract

The digital revolution has now moved beyond music and video files. A person can now translate three-dimensional objects into digital files and, at the press of a button, recreate those items via a 3D printer or similar device. Just as digitization placed pressure on the copyright system, so will these digital computer-aided design (CAD) files stress the patent system. Patents directed to physical objects can now have their value appropriated — not by the transfer of physical embodiments — but by the making, selling, and transferring of CAD files designed to print the invention. We term this phenomenon digital patent infringement. We explore the ways the patent system can respond to protect patent owners against the appropriation of their inventions via these digital files. First, we explore whether indirect infringement doctrines sufficiently protect patent holders against these CAD files. Given the nature of likely accused indirect infringers, we conclude, contrary to earlier literature, that these doctrines likely are not up to the task. Second, we offer novel theories of direct “digital” patent infringement based on the CAD files alone. We consider whether offers to sell and sales of these files should constitute direct patent infringement. Because such commercial activity is an appropriation of the economic value of the patented invention, we believe the law should recognize such an infringement theory. Next, rejecting the prior assumptions of the literature, we provocatively explore whether the CAD files alone should be viewed as infringement for making the patented device, given the de minimis effort it takes to create the item via a 3D printer or related device. As a technological matter, the line between digital and tangible has eroded to the point where one could view these files as infringement. As a legal and policy matter, however, such expansion of patent infringement liability could have significant chilling effects on other actors and incentives, giving us pause in extending liability in this context.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
3D打印时代的数字专利侵权
数字革命现在已经超越了音乐和视频文件。现在,人们可以将三维物体转换成数字文件,只需按下一个按钮,就可以通过3D打印机或类似设备重新创建这些物体。正如数字化给版权制度带来压力一样,这些数字计算机辅助设计(CAD)文件也会给专利制度带来压力。针对物理对象的专利现在可以通过制造、销售和转让用于打印该发明的CAD文件来获得其价值,而不是通过转让物理实施例。我们称这种现象为数字专利侵权。我们探讨了专利制度如何应对通过这些数字文件保护专利所有人的发明不被盗用。首先,我们探讨间接侵权理论是否足以保护专利持有人免受这些CAD文件的侵害。鉴于可能被指控的间接侵权人的性质,我们得出结论,与早期文献相反,这些理论可能无法胜任这项任务。其次,我们仅基于CAD文件提出了直接“数字”专利侵权的新理论。我们考虑是否要约出售和销售这些文件应构成直接的专利侵权。由于这种商业活动是对专利发明的经济价值的侵占,我们认为法律应该承认这种侵权理论。接下来,拒绝文献的先前假设,我们大胆地探讨了单独的CAD文件是否应该被视为制造专利设备的侵权,考虑到通过3D打印机或相关设备创建项目所需的最小努力。作为一个技术问题,数字和有形之间的界限已经逐渐模糊,以至于人们可以将这些文件视为侵权。然而,作为一个法律和政策问题,这种专利侵权责任的扩大可能会对其他行为者和激励机制产生重大的寒蝉效应,使我们暂停在这种情况下扩大责任。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Disability, Reasonable Accommodation and the Employer's Obligations: Nano Nagle School V Daly ‘Reasonable Offers’ as a Defence to Unfair Prejudice Petitions: Prescott v Potamianos The Problematic Development of the Stalking Protection Order Equal Civil Partnerships, Discrimination and the Indulgence of Time: R (on the Application of Steinfeld and Keidan) V Secretary of State for International Development Reason‐Giving in Administrative Law: Where are We and Why Have the Courts Not Embraced the ‘General Common Law Duty to Give Reasons’?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1