3 ms·

I worked at Medtronic and currently work at Qualcomm. Both companies had policies matching this. Don't search patents so you are not influenced by them.

jbay808 6y ago
Since when did that matter in patent law? Patents are public domain, and ignorance of a patent is not a defense against having infringed. Since at least 2012, the US has had a first-to-file policy instead of first-to-invent. There's no legal reason to worry about being influenced by a patent. The only concern might be boxing your creativity where you can't think of alternative solutions to a problem once you've seen one solution. That doesn't seem like a strong enough reason for a blanket policy. IANAL but this confuses me.
- jburgess777 6y ago
  What I was told is that if you research the patent and aware of its existence then you may be guilty of willful enfringement with treble the normal penalties: https://www.jonesday.com/en/insights/2016/06/supreme-court-upends-law-of-treble-damages-in-patent-cases https://www.jonesday.com/en/insights/2016/06/supreme-court-u... https://www.ip-watch.org/2016/07/26/us-high-court-restores-treble-damages-for-patent-infringement/ https://www.ip-watch.org/2016/07/26/us-high-court-restores-t...
  - jacques_chester 6y ago
    More precisely, a standing policy that researching patents is forbidden is prima facie evidence that your employees couldn't have possibly known about an existing patent. That means that a plaintiff suing for willful infringement will need to find evidence that someone went out of their way to ignore the policy. That might be quite difficult. (Of course: not a lawyer, this is not legal advice)
    - jbay808 6y ago
      Wow, I'm amazed that this would hold up. That's like saying that if I drive with a blindfold on, I couldn't possibly have willfully caused an accident because, as a matter of policy, I couldn't have been aware of the other cars on the road.
      - jacques_chester 6y ago
        A more accurate analogy is a company policy that strictly prohibits driving.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- abfan1127 6y ago
  you're right, its the creativity and alternative solutions.

jbay808 6y ago

Since when did that matter in patent law? Patents are public domain, and ignorance of a patent is not a defense against having infringed. Since at least 2012, the US has had a first-to-file policy instead of first-to-invent. There's no legal reason to worry about being influenced by a patent. The only concern might be boxing your creativity where you can't think of alternative solutions to a problem once you've seen one solution. That doesn't seem like a strong enough reason for a blanket policy. IANAL but this confuses me.

jburgess777 6y ago
What I was told is that if you research the patent and aware of its existence then you may be guilty of willful enfringement with treble the normal penalties: https://www.jonesday.com/en/insights/2016/06/supreme-court-upends-law-of-treble-damages-in-patent-cases https://www.jonesday.com/en/insights/2016/06/supreme-court-u... https://www.ip-watch.org/2016/07/26/us-high-court-restores-treble-damages-for-patent-infringement/ https://www.ip-watch.org/2016/07/26/us-high-court-restores-t...
- jacques_chester 6y ago
  More precisely, a standing policy that researching patents is forbidden is prima facie evidence that your employees couldn't have possibly known about an existing patent. That means that a plaintiff suing for willful infringement will need to find evidence that someone went out of their way to ignore the policy. That might be quite difficult. (Of course: not a lawyer, this is not legal advice)
  - jbay808 6y ago
    Wow, I'm amazed that this would hold up. That's like saying that if I drive with a blindfold on, I couldn't possibly have willfully caused an accident because, as a matter of policy, I couldn't have been aware of the other cars on the road.
    - jacques_chester 6y ago
      A more accurate analogy is a company policy that strictly prohibits driving.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
abfan1127 6y ago
you're right, its the creativity and alternative solutions.