Legal Definitions - domination

In patent law, domination occurs when an earlier, fundamental patent has such broad claims that a later-developed invention, even if it's an improvement and separately patented, cannot be made, used, or sold without infringing the claims of the earlier patent. Essentially, the scope of the older patent "covers" or "dominates" the newer invention.

This creates a unique situation: the owner of the newer, improved invention cannot practice their invention without permission from the owner of the dominating patent. Conversely, the owner of the original patent cannot practice the improvement without permission from the owner of the improvement patent. This often leads to a need for licensing agreements between the two patent holders.

Here are some examples illustrating patent domination:

• Example 1: Fundamental Drug Compound and Improved Formulation

  Imagine a pharmaceutical company holds a patent on a novel chemical compound (let's call it "Compound Z") that is highly effective in treating a specific medical condition. The patent claims cover the compound itself and its basic therapeutic use. Years later, another company develops a new, slow-release formulation of Compound Z that significantly reduces side effects and allows for less frequent dosing, leading to a separate patent for this improved formulation.

  How it illustrates domination: The slow-release formulation still contains and utilizes Compound Z, which is protected by the earlier patent. Therefore, manufacturing or selling the improved slow-release drug would infringe the original patent on Compound Z. The original patent "dominates" the improved formulation. The company with the slow-release patent cannot sell their improved drug without obtaining a license from the original Compound Z patent holder. However, the original patent holder cannot make the *slow-release* version without a license from the improvement patent holder.

• Example 2: Core Software Algorithm and Specific Application

  Consider a patent granted for a broad, fundamental algorithm for efficiently encrypting data packets for secure communication over a network. The claims describe the core mathematical process and its application in general data transmission. Later, a different software developer invents a highly optimized, specialized version of this encryption algorithm specifically designed for real-time, high-volume financial transactions, achieving unprecedented speed and security for that niche. This specialized version is also patented.

  How it illustrates domination: The specialized financial transaction encryption algorithm fundamentally relies on and incorporates the techniques described in the broader data encryption algorithm patent. Therefore, implementing the specialized algorithm would infringe the original, broader patent. The original patent "dominates" the improved, specialized algorithm. The owner of the specialized algorithm patent needs a license from the owner of the fundamental encryption algorithm patent to use their invention commercially.

• Example 3: Basic Mechanical Device and Enhanced Feature

  Suppose a company holds a patent for a novel type of robotic arm with a unique joint mechanism that allows for extremely precise and flexible movements. The claims cover the core design and functionality of this robotic arm. Subsequently, another inventor develops an advanced end-effector (the "hand" of the robot) that incorporates a sophisticated haptic feedback system, allowing human operators to "feel" what the robot is touching. This end-effector is specifically designed to attach to and work with the original robotic arm and is also patented.

  How it illustrates domination: The improved robotic arm with the advanced haptic end-effector still incorporates the unique joint mechanism of the original robotic arm patent. Therefore, manufacturing or selling the improved robotic arm system would infringe the original patent. The original robotic arm patent "dominates" the improvement. The owner of the haptic end-effector patent cannot sell their improved system without a license from the original robotic arm patent holder. Conversely, the original robotic arm patent holder cannot offer the haptic end-effector without a license from its inventor.