The Divergence of Corporate Officer Liability Doctrine Under Patent and Copyright Law

Corporate officer liability doctrines under both the Patent Act and the Copyright Act diverge markedly from traditional corporate, agency, and tort law doctrines. This manuscript explores why the case law in federal patent and copyright cases differs so markedly not only from traditional legal norms, but from each other as well. It posits that the incorrect articulations of individual officer liability found in both patent and copyright law can be attributed to two factors: (1) the different avenues of appeals that patent and copyright cases take that result in different models of legal decision-making; and (2) judicial reluctance to apply the strict liability standard of patent and copyright law to individuals as opposed to entities. The cumulative effect of these two factors is an erosion of the traditional protection offered to corporate officers that puts active owners of small and closely-held firms at particular risk because of the dual roles they occupy