Skip to content

I’ve often wondered whether it is technically correct to refer to intellectual property infringement as a species of tort law.  We tend not to equate torts with IP in common parlance, but there are certainly similarities, notably with property-based torts like trespass and conversion.  Maybe we don’t use the tort terminology because it runs up against the notion of property-based torts and many of us don’t like equating IP rights too absolutely with physical property rights.  I suppose another reason to avoid the analogy is that IP tends to be a more specialized area than tort law and people may not want to blur the boundaries between more generalized and more specialized areas of law.  But torts are basically civil wrongs resulting in attempts to repair the harm done to a victim and this could just as easily describe an IP infringement suit, couldn’t it?  I’m just interested in the terminological issue and whether there is something more substantive at stake.