Staple commercial product

Abstract

Certainty in patent protection is crucial to strike a fair balance between the rights of the patent holder, who has an interest in protecting the monopoly over the use and marketing of the invention, and the rights of third parties, who have an interest in knowing the boundaries of the patent in order to compete in the market without infringement. The patent holder shall not claim rights beyond the limits of the patent, and the third party shall not use a product (or process) in a manner infringing the patent. One particular issue is indirect infringement, where the supplier is seemingly supplying a non-patented product, whose use by third parties constitutes patent infringement. According to patent laws, if the supplied product is a staple commercial product, there is no indirect infringement unless the supplier induces third parties to produce the patented invention. The problem in indirect infringement lies with the definition of the term ‘staple commercial product’. If the term is defined very broadly, the patent holder will be authorized to prohibit uses that fall outside the patent scope, and the third party’s right to lawful competition will be hampered. On the other hand, if it is defined very narrowly, there is a risk that patent protection will be limited, and third-party breaches will be tolerated. The delimitation of the meaning of the staple commercial product will bring clarity to the boundaries of the patent and the permitted and non-infringing use by the third party.