Will the Supreme Court bring balance back to the patent market?

“We used to have, for the most part in this country, what I’ll call an honor system where companies that were using technologies patented by others willingly took licenses without being forced by court orders to do so,” former Federal Circuit Chief Judge Paul Michelexplained at an event in April. “The honor system now is largely gone.”

So significantly has the landscape shifted over the last decade in favor of infringers that there are virtually no arms length negotiations any more, which means that the law and the legal system have failed. When expensive litigation is the only option that means the law has become so one-sided that private resolution cannot happen. The prospect of triple damages would instantly change the calculus and force infringers to the bargaining table, an occurrence that would lead to a far more functional system.

If the Supreme Court opens up a real possibility that enhanced damages could be obtained, giving the district court discretion and making the ultimate decision difficult to challenge on appeal, that would quickly and dramatically even the playing field between infringer and patent owner. The risk of being hit with triple damages would be too great and those infringer attorneys who now so arrogantly explain that their job is nothing more than ignoring patent owners will do so only at great risk. Such a ruling would truly open up the private marketplace rather than to force all disputes into litigation. The Supreme Court could bring sanity back to the patent market while staying philosophically true to the believe that there should be few rigid tests and district courts should be given the ability to exercise broad discretion where the statute grants such discretion..."

http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2015/10/21/will-the-supreme-court-bring-balance-back-to-the-patent-market/id=62635/