No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
REDUCING THE RISK OF PATENT INFRINGEMENT
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 19 June 2023
Abstract
Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
One life-cycle issue that is often overlooked in the design process is that of intellectual property (IP). Yet the IP associated with a product is a valuable asset of the company, sometime comparable to the materials produced or the manufacturing infrastructure. In particular, this paper addresses the IP of patents, the opportunity for patent infringement, and ways to reduce the risk of getting into this situation. One poorly managed patent infringement case could cost the company millions of dollars, wiping out years of profit from production of that product. Patent infringement is a complex topic that combines design and law with many uncertainties. Designing products that do not infringe the patent rights of others is a goal that cannot be done with certainty. A primary reason is due to the uncertainty of understanding what is protected in a patent and the uncertainty of the patent infringement process. The purpose of this paper is to educate the designer on what constitutes patent infringement and explain some ways to reduce the risk of infringing the patent rights of others.
- Type
- Article
- Information
- Creative Commons
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.- Copyright
- The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press
References
Altshuller, G.S., (1984) Creativity as an exact science; The theory of the solution of inventive problems. New York: Gordon and BreachGoogle Scholar
Boothroyd, G and Dewhurst, P (1988), “Product design for manufacture and assembly”, Manufacturing Engineering Vol 100, No. 4, pp 42–46.Google Scholar
Miles, B. (1990), “Design for manufacture techniques help the team make early decisions”, Journal of Engineering Design, Vol.1, No. 4, pp. 365–371. DOI: 10.1080/09544829008901664CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galetovic, A., Haber, S., and Levine, R., (2015), “An empirical examination of patent holdup”, Journal of Competition Law and Economics, Vol.11, No. 3, pp. 549–578. https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/joclec/nhv024.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jiang, P., Atherton, M., Harrison, D., and Malizia, A., (2017) “Framework of mechanical design knowledge representations for avoiding patent infringement”, In: Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED17), Vol. 6: Design Information and Knowledge, Vancouver, Canada, 21.-25.08.2017Google Scholar
Katznelson, R. and Howells, J. (2021), “Exclusive rights stimulate design-around: how circumventing Edison's lamp patent promoted competition and new technology development”, Journal of Competition Law and Economics, Vol. 17, No. 4, pp. 1007–1052. https://doi.org/10.1093/joclec/nhab010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, Y., Suh, J., and Park, S. (2008), “Visualization of patent analysis for emerging technology”, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 1804–1812.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitch, E., (2000) “Elementary and persistent errors in the economic analysis of intellectual property”, Vanderbilt Law Review 1727, Vol. 53, pp. 1729–1738. https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vir/vol53/iss6/20Google Scholar
Koh, E. (2020) “Read the Full Patent or Just the Claims? Mitigating design fixation and design distraction when reviewing patent documents”, Design Studies, Vol. 68, pp. 34–57; https://doi.org./10.1016/j.destud.2020.02.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, Z., Zhang, Z., and Chen, Y. (2012), “A scenario-based approach for requirements management in engineering design”, Concurrent Engineering Research and Applications”, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 99–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meerkamm, H, (1994), “Design for X – a core area of design methodology”, Journal of Engineering Design, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 145–163 https://www-tandfonline-com.uidaho.idm.oclc.org/doi/abs/10.1080/09544829408907881CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mirzale, R. and Henderson, L. (2005), “Patent Claim Construction”, IEEE Antennas and Propagation Magazine, Vol. 47, No. 5, pp. 163–224.Google Scholar
Nydegger, R, Richards, J., and Todd, D. (2016), “Design-around techniques”, in Electronic and Software Patents (Eds Lundberg, S. W. et al. ) The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc., Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Pahl, G. and Beitz, W. (1996), Engineering Design: A Systematic Approach, Springer, Berlin. http://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-3581-4Google Scholar
Sherkow, (2017), “Patent Law's Reproducibility Paradox”, Duke Law Journal, Vol. 66, pp. 845–911.Google Scholar
Stauffer, L. and Lieske, S, (2019), “Domain 8: Management of technology, research, and development”, A Guide to the Engineering Body of Knowledge, 5th Edition, Domain 8, Shah, H. American Society for Engineering Management pp. 205–226Google Scholar
Tietz, J. (2018), “The broadest reasonable interpretation” in Applying Issue Preclusion to Administrative Patent Claim Construction”, Michigan Law Review, Vol. 117, No. 2, pp. 349–382. https://www.jstor.org/stable/44985666CrossRefGoogle Scholar
USPTO1 (2022), United States Patent and Trademark Office https://www.uspto.gov/patents/basics/general-information-patentsGoogle Scholar
USPTO2 (2022), United States Patent and Trademark Office, https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/taf/h_counts.htmGoogle Scholar
Weed, S. and Koopman, A. (2016), “Noninfringement and invalidity opinions”, in Electronic and Software Patents (Eds Lundberg, S. W. et al. ) The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc., Washington, DC.Google Scholar
You have
Access
Open access