Modern international trade law seeks to increase global welfare by lowering barriers to trade and encouraging international competition. This “free trade” approach, while originally applied to reduce tariffs on trade, has been extended to challenge non-tariff barriers, with modern trade agreements targeting telecommunication regulations, industrial and product safety standards, and intellectual property rules. Patent law, however, remains inconsistent with free-trade principles by allowing patent holders to subdivide the world market along national borders and to forbid trade in patented goods from one nation to another. This Article demonstrates that the doctrines thwarting free trade in patented goods are protectionist remnants of long-abandoned pre-Industrial Age economic theories, and the modern arguments for restricting international trade in patented goods—most notably, the possible desirability of permitting price discrimination—provide an insufficient justification for restricting trade across national frontiers. The Article concludes that modern patent law doctrine should be modified to permit free international trade in patented goods and that, if price discrimination or other goals are thought desirable, better alternatives are available to achieve those goals. © 2014 Sarah R. Wasserman Rajec. † Lecturer in Law and Fellow in Law, Science & Technology, Stanford Law School. I would like to thank Sean Bottomley, Robert Brauneis, Dan Burk, John Duffy, Rebecca Eisenberg, Andrew Gilden, Paul Goldstein, Tomas Gomez-Arostegui, Timothy Holbrook, Mark Lemley, Benjamin Liu, Amelia Rinehart, Jacob Sherkow, Marketa Trimble, Molly Van Houweling, Peter Yu, and participants in the World Intellectual Property Organization’s Seventh Advanced Intellectual Property Research Seminar, the 2013 Intellectual Property Scholars Conference, the Sixth Annual Junior Scholars in IP Workshop at Michigan State University College of Law, and faculty presentation at Brooklyn Law School, Drexel, Fordham, Northern Kentucky University, University of New Hampshire, The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law, The University of Pittsburgh School of Law, and William & Mary Law School. I would also like to thank Max Wallot for his excellent research assistance. 318 BERKELEY TECHNOLOGY LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 29:317