Abstract
The law’s complexity is such that even apparently minor changes can have numerous “ripple” effects. This Article examines the ripple effects from a potential broadening of patent law’s definition of an infringing “offer to sell.’ Currently, courts limit “offers” to formal, contract-law offers; but a policy analysis suggests that “offers ” should include advertisements and other promotions, which harm patentees via price erosion. Changing the offer definition to include advertisements and other promotions requires a careful consideration of the effects, including effects on patent litigation, innovation incentives, the extraterritorial reach of U.S. patent law, third-party liability, and Constitutional concerns. This Article performs that analysis and provides specific recommendations for crafting the definition of an infringing “offer” to sell.