Owning a patent does not necessarily mean that patent infringement is not occurring.
During consultations with clients, I sometimes hear statements like, “I have been granted a patent, but my opponent claims I am infringing, so their argument is unfair.”There are even cases where people use this logic in patent lawsuits, often leaving judges perplexed.
However, considering the fundamental nature of patents, it becomes clear that such claims are neither valid in negotiations nor in litigation.
First, patents have the nature of exclusive rights.This exclusivity means that if an invention is patented, others cannot use it without permission. However, this does not mean that the patent holder has the unrestricted right to use the patented invention freely.
Therefore, the argument that “I have a patent for this invention, so no infringement can occur” is not valid in any context.
Additionally, patents function as prohibition rights. That is, a patent holder can prevent others from practicing their patented invention.This aspect of patents prevents competitors from manufacturing identical products, allowing the patent holder to secure a competitive advantage.
Conversely, if a company develops and sells a product without obtaining a patent, competitors may produce and sell copycat products within just a few months.Patents serve to prevent such copying activities by competitors.
Moreover, a patent is not a license to use. Owning a patent does not automatically mean that patent infringement is impossible.Even if you are using your own patented invention, another patent holder may still claim that you are infringing their patent.
Therefore, the issue of infringement should be assessed separately from the fact of owning a patent.
In summary, the possession of a patent is unrelated to a non-infringement claim (i.e., "I am not infringing").I hope this explanation of the nature of patent rights helps improve your understanding of patents.
Comments