The Inclusion of Trespass in the Infringement of Intellectual Property Rights Based on the Boundaries of Intellectual Property and the Scope of Its Ownership

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 PhD in Private Law, Allameh Tabataba'i University, Tehran, Iran.

2 Associate Professor of Public and International Law, Allameh Tabataba'i University, Tehran, Iran.

10.22059/jlq.2025.380540.1007927

Abstract

The proprietary approach to intellectual property rights is an evolving concept that seeks to apply traditional property law principles to intellectual property. A critical aspect of this approach is defining the boundaries of intellectual property and the scope of ownership. In traditional property law, violations of ownership boundaries are addressed through the doctrine of trespass, whereas in intellectual property law, such violations are termed infringements. This article examines whether the doctrine of trespass can apply to intellectual property infringements, considering the boundaries of intellectual property, the scope of ownership, and the duality of the rights to exclude and to use. It aims to determine whether these two doctrines are absolutely or relatively compatible, enabling the application of trespass rules to intellectual property infringements, particularly in cases of legal gaps or ambiguities. Using a descriptive-analytical method and library-based research, this study clarifies the abstract boundaries of intellectual property and the duality of the rights to exclude and to use. From a proprietary perspective, intellectual property rights, within the objective boundaries of intellectual property and where the rights to exclude and to use are unified, are deemed property rights. In such cases, infringement may align with the doctrine of trespass in traditional property law, allowing the application of trespass rules.

Keywords

References

منابع
بابایی، ایرج (1394). حقوق مسئولیت مدنی و الزامات خارج از قرارداد. تهران: میزان.
جعفری­ تبار، حسن (1386). ملک معنی در کنار گفتاری در فلسفۀ حقوق مالکیت فکری. فصلنامۀ حقوق، مجلۀ دانشکدۀ حقوق و علوم سیاسی، 37(2)، 41-82. در:
 https://www.noormags.ir/view/fa/magazine/number/8767   (27فروردین 1404).
زاهدی، مهدی؛ چاوشی لاهرود، ابراهیم (1401). وضعیت حقوقی پدیده‌های فکری قبل از دورۀ حمایت و بعد از آن. فصلنامۀ علمی پژوهش حقوق خصوصی، 11(41)، 127- 157. https://doi.org/10.22054/jplr.2023.69929.2708
شیخی، مریم (1394). اصول حقوق مالکیت فکری، تهران: میزان.
کاتوزیان، ناصر، (1378). الزام‌های خارج از قرارداد: ضمان قهری، جلد اول، چاپ دوم، تهران: انتشارات دانشگاه تهران.
صفائی، سیدحسین؛ رحیمی، حبیب‌الله (1390). مسئولیت مدنی (الزامات خارج از قرارداد). تهران: سمت.
صاحب، طیبه (1398). مبانی حقوق مالکیت فکری از دیدگاه اقتصادی. رسالۀ دکتری دانشگاه تهران.
عیسائی تفرشی، محمد، صادقی، محمد، شاه محمدی، محمد، (1390). تفویت منفعت مالک، ضابطه‌ای برای جبران خسارت ناشی از نقض حق اختراع در ایران و آمریکا. پژوهش‌های حقوق تطبیقی، (3)، 113-132. در: https://ensani.ir/fa/article/303240/ (21مردادماه 1403)
میرحسینی، سیدحسن (1395). حقوق اختراعات. تهران: میزان.
References
Babaei, I. (2015). Non-contractual Obligations & Tort Law. Tehran: Mizan. [in Persian]
Bessen, J., & Meurer, M. (2008). Patent failure: how judges, bureaucrats, and lawyers put innovators at risk. United States of America: Princeton University Press.
 Burk, Dan L., Lemley, Mark A. (2005). Quantum Patent Mechanics. Lewis and Clark Law Review, (9), 29-56. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.628224.
Chisum, Donald S., Nard, Craig Allen, Schwartz, Herbert F., Newman, Pauline, and Kieff, F. Scott, (2004). Principles of Patent Law: Cases and Materials (3rd ed.) USA: Foundation Press.
Coll. Sav. Bank v. Fla. (1999). Prepaid Postsecondary Educ. Expense Bd., 527 U.S. 666, 673
Davison, M. (2012). Plain Packaging of Tobacco and the “Right” to Use a Trademark. EUR. INTELL. PROP. REV. (34), 1149-1214. at: https://www.academia.edu/8883995/Plain_Packaging_and_the_Interpretation_of_the_TRIPS_Agreement. (Accessed 11 August 2024)
Dun v. Lumbermen’s Credit, 209 U.S. 20 (1908).
eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, LLC, 126 S.Ct. 1837 (2006).
Eisiaei Tafreshi, M., Sadegi, M., & Shah mohammadi, M. (2011). Distribution of the owner's benefit, a criterion for compensation for damages resulting from patent infringement in Iran and America. Comparative Law Research, (3), 113-132. In https://ensani.ir/fa/article/303240/ (Accessed 11 August 2025) [in Persian]
Epstein, Richard A. (2010). The Disintegration of Intellectual Property? A Classical Liberal Response to a Premature Obituary. Stanford Law Review, (62), 455-526. https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1236273
Epstein, Richard A. (2011) What Is So Special about Intangible Property? The Case for Intelligent Carryovers. in Geoffrey A. Manne & Joshua D. Wright (eds.), Competition Policy and Patent Law under Uncertainty. Regulating Innovation Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
European Observatory on Counterfeiting and Pricy (2018). Damages in Intellectual Property Rights. Alicante: OHIM.
Gervais, D. (2013). Plain Packaging and the TRIPS Agreement: A Response to Professors Davison, Mitchell and Voon. Australian Intellectual Law Journal, (23), 96–110. at: Google Scholar (Accessed 10 September 2023)
Hughes, J. (1998). The Philosophy of Intellectual Property. Georgetown Law Journal, (77), 299-330 at:
https://www.academia.edu/36302509/THEORIES_OF_INTELLECTUAL_PROPERTY(Accessed 11 August 2024)
Heffan, Ira V., (1997). Willful Patent Infringement. The Federal Circuit Bar Journal, (7), 115-137. at: https://law.siu.edu/_common/documents/law-journal/articles-2018/spring-2018/8-fanning-sm.pdf. (Accessed 11 August 2023).
Jafari Tabar, H. (2007). Property of Meaning Alongside Discourse in the Philosophy of Intellectual Property Rights. Law Quarterly, Journal of the Faculty of Law and Political Sciences, 37(2), 41-82. https://www.noormags.ir/view/fa/magazine/number/8767 (Accessed 16 April 2025) [in Persian]
Jay, Datler. Jr., Palsgraf, (2008). Principal of Tort Law, and the Persistent Need for Common-Law Judgment in IP Infringement Cases, University of Akron School of Law, second IP Forum.
Kaiser Aetna v. United States, 444 U.S. 164, 176 (1979)
Katouzian, N. (1999). Non-contractual Obligations: compulsory guarantee, 1(2), Tehran: Tehran University Press. [in Persian]
Lipton, J. (2003). Mixed Metaphors in Cyberspace: Property in Information and Information Systems. Loy. U. Chi. L. J., (35) 235-274. at: at: https://lawecommons.luc.edu/luclj/vol35/iss1/9. (Accessed 11 August 2024)
Liu, J. (2012). Copyright Injunctions After eBay:an Empirical Study. Lewis & Clark L. Rev., (16), 215-288. at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1869390. (Accessed 11 August 2024).
Long, P. O. (1991). Invention, Authorship, Intellectual Property and the Origin of Patents: Notes Toward a Conceptual History. Technology of Culture, (32), 318-355. at:
https://www.academia.edu/37370817/Invention_Authorship_Intellectual_Property_and_the_Origin_of_Patents_Notes_toward_a_Conceptual_History. (Accessed 11 August 2024).
Long, C. (2004). Information Costs in Patent and Copyright., Virginia Law Review, (90), 465–549. at: Google Scholar (Accessed 21 September 2023).
Merges, Robert P. (2017) What Kind of Rights Are Intellectual Property Rights? Forthcoming in Rochelle C Dreyfuss & Justine Pila (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Intellectual Property Law.
Merrill, T. W. (1998). Property and the Right to Exclude. NEB. L. REV., (77). 230-755. at: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/33139498.pdf. (Accessed 11 August2024)
Mir Hosseini, S. H. (2016). Patent Law. Tehran, Mizan. [in Persian]
Mossoff, A. (1930). Exclusion and Exclusive Use in Patent Law. Harvard Journal of Law and Technology, (22), 321-379. at: https://jolt.law.harvard.edu/articles/pdf/v22/22HarvJLTech321.pdf. (Accessed 11 August 2024)
Nichols v. Universal Pictures, 45 F.2d 119 (2d Cir. 1930).
Oswald, Lynda J., (2017). The Strict Liability of Direct Patent Infringement. Vand. J. ENT. & Tech. L., XIX(4), 993, 993-1025. at: params=/context/jetlaw/article/1133/&path_info=31_19VandJEnt_TechL993_2016_2017_.pdf. (Accessed 11 August 2024)
Roger D., Blair, Cooter, Thomas F., (2002). Strict Liability and its Alternatives is Patent Law. Berkeley Technology Law, (17), 799-845. at:https://experts.umn.edu/en/publications/strict-liability-and-its-alternatives-in-patent-law. (Accessed 11 August 2024)
Safaei, S. H., & Rahimi, H. (2011). Tort law (non-contractual obligations). Tehran: Samt. [in Persian]
Saheb, T. (2019). Fundamentals of intellectual property rights from an economic perspective. PhD thesis, University of Tehran. [in Persian]
Shavell, S. (2007). Liability for Accidents, school of law. Harvard University and Bureau of Economic Research, Handbook of Law and Economics, Vol. 1.
Sheikhi, M. (2015). Principles of Intellectual Property Rights. Tehran: Mizan. [in Persian]
Smith, Henry E. (2007). Intellectual Property as Property: Delineating Entitlements in Information. Yale Law Journal, (116), 1742-1822. at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1000520.(Accessed 11 August 2024).
 Stuckey, J. (1981). The Equitable Action for Breach of Confidence: Is Information Ever Property?. Sydney Law Review, (9), 402-433. at: http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/SydLawRw/1981/6.html. (Accessed 11 August 2024).
Sterk, S. E. (2005). Intellectualizing Property: The Tenuous Connections between Land and Copyright. 83 WASH. U. L. Q, (83). 417- 470. At: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/241838842. (Accessed 11 August 2024)
Vishnubhakat, S. (2017). An Intentional Tort Theory of Patents. Florida Law Review, (68), 571-629. at: https://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/flr/vol68/iss2/8. (Accessed 11 August 2024)
WIPO (2004). WIPO Intellectual Property Handbook: Policy, Law and Use, Geneva, Wipo Publication.
Zahedi, M., & Chavoshi L., E. (2023). The Legal Status of Intellectual Things Before and After the Protection Period. Private Law Research, 11(41), 127- 157. https://doi.org/10.22054/jplr.2023.69929.2708[in Persian]
 
 
 
Law Quarterly
Volume 55, Issue 1
April 2025
Pages 1-23

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics