Editing Patent (section)

===Enforcement===
Patents can generally only be enforced through [[Lawsuit|civil lawsuits]] (for example, for a US patent, by an action for patent infringement in a United States federal district court), although some countries (such as [[France]] and [[Austria]]) have criminal penalties for [[wikt:wanton#Adjective|wanton]] infringement.<ref>{{cite web |author=[[DLA Piper]] |year=2005 |title=Patent Litigation across Europe |url=http://cecollect.com/ve/ZZf3096aBBft91T940 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071006203134/http://cecollect.com/ve/ZZf3096aBBft91T940 |url-status=dead |archive-date=2007-10-06 |publisher=cecollect.com}}</ref> Typically, the patent owner seeks monetary compensation ([[damages]]) for past infringement, and seeks an [[injunction]] that prohibits the defendant from engaging in future acts of infringement, or seeks either damages or injunction. To prove infringement, the patent owner must establish that the accused infringer practises all the requirements of at least one of the claims of the patent. (In many jurisdictions the scope of the patent may not be limited to what is literally stated in the claims, for example due to the ''[[doctrine of equivalents]]''.)

An accused infringer has the right to challenge the validity of the patent allegedly being infringed in a [[counterclaim]]. A patent can be found invalid on grounds described in the relevant patent laws, which vary between countries. Often, the grounds are a subset of requirements for [[patentability]] in the relevant country. Although an infringer is generally free to rely on any available ground of invalidity (such as a [[Novelty (patent)|prior publication]], for example), some countries have sanctions to prevent the same validity questions being relitigated. An example is the UK [[Certificate of contested validity]].

Patent [[license|licensing agreements]] are [[contract]]s in which the patent owner (the licensor) agrees to grant the licensee the right to make, use, sell, or import the claimed invention, usually in return for a royalty or other compensation.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Katz|first1=Michael L.|last2=Shapiro|first2=Carl|date=1985|title=On the Licensing of Innovations|url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/2555509|journal=[[The RAND Journal of Economics]]|volume=16|issue=4|pages=504–520|jstor=2555509|issn=0741-6261|access-date=2022-02-07|archive-date=2022-02-07|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220207001139/https://www.jstor.org/stable/2555509|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Schmitz|first=Patrick W.|date=2002|title=On Monopolistic Licensing Strategies under Asymmetric Information|url=https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/12532/1/MPRA_paper_12532.pdf|journal=[[Journal of Economic Theory]]|language=en|volume=106|issue=1|pages=177–189|doi=10.1006/jeth.2001.2863|access-date=2022-02-07}}</ref> It is common for companies engaged in complex technical fields to enter into multiple license agreements associated with the production of a single product. Moreover, it is equally common for competitors in such fields to license patents to each other under [[cross-licensing]] agreements in order to share the benefits of using each other's patented inventions. Freedom Licenses like the Apache 2.0 License are a hybrid of copyright/trademark/patent license/contract due to the bundling nature of the three intellectual properties in one central license. This can make it difficult to enforce because patent licenses cannot be granted this way under copyright and would have to be considered a contract.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Problems with Apache license and Others Involving Copyright Uses|url=https://pastebin.com/JkTEyKgc|access-date=2021-08-29|website=Pastebin.com|archive-date=2021-08-29|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210829204850/https://pastebin.com/JkTEyKgc|url-status=live}}</ref>