BEST]-ITI-ZMENT UP THE LAW
`S13I:IINII
`
`TIIBTS Ell
`
`Volume 3
`
`§§ 504-707 A
`
`/45 _/4c[optec[ ancl /Oromuflgateol
`
`BY
`
`THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE
`AT WASHINGTON, D. C.
`
`May 19, 1976
`
`51‘. PAUL, MINN.
`
`AMERICAN LAW
`
`INSTITUTE PUBLISHERS
`
`1977
`
`..
`_
`F\NNEoh .-
`'J.mNtR
`L‘-.
`GAR;;'.;I I
`1775 K Street. N.W.
`Washington. DC 20005
`
`Page 1 of 4
`
`Béogen Exhibit 2004
`
`oalition v. Biogen
`IPR2015-01136
`
`Biogen Exhibit 2004
`Coalition v. Biogen
`IPR2015-01136
`
`Page 1 of 4
`
`

`
`COPYRIGHT © 1977
`BY
`
`THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE
`
`All Rights Reserved
`
`3 Restatement of Torts 2:!
`1s! RspnnI—1961
`
`Page 2 of 4
`
`Page 2 of 4
`
`

`
`
`
`§ 682
`
`TORTS, SECOND
`
`Ch. 33
`
`Chapter 31
`
`Section
`
`ABUSE OF PROCESS
`
`682. General principle
`
`§ 682.
`
`General principle
`
`One who uses a legal process, whether criminal or civil,
`against another primarily to accomplish a purpose for
`which it is not designed, is subject to liability to the
`other for harm caused by the abuse of process.
`
`Comment:
`
`a. The gravamen of the misconduct for which the liability
`stated in this Section is imposed is not the wrongful procurement
`of legal process or the wrongful initiation of criminal or civil
`proceedings;
`it is the misuse of process, no matter how properly
`obtained, for any purpose other than that which it was designed
`to accomplish. Therefore, it is immaterial that the process was
`properly issued, that it was obtained in the course of proceed-
`ings that were brought with probable cause and for a proper pur-
`pose, or even that the proceedings terminated in favor of the per-
`son instituting or initiating them. The subsequent misuse of the
`process, though properly obtained, constitutes the misconduct for
`which the liability is imposed under the rule stated in this Sec-
`tion.
`
`Illustrations:
`
`1. A, the master and owner of a vessel, mortgages it to
`B, with a stipulation that A shall retain the possession of the
`vessel and make voyages in it.
`In order to compel A to give
`up the register of his vessel, to which B was not entitled
`under the terms of the mortgage, B causes a capias to issue
`in an action to recover the amount loaned, knowing that A
`cannot pay the money or obtain bail. A is arrested under
`capias and kept in prison until he gives up the register, his
`lack of which prevents him from making several profitable
`voyages. B is subject to liability to A for abuse of process,
`although the proceedings have not terminated in A's favor
`and irrespective of whether B has probable cause for the
`action in which the capias was issued.
`see Appendix for Reporter’: Notes, Court Citations. and Cross References
`474
`
`Page 3 of 4
`
`Page 3 of 4
`
`

`
`Ch. 31
`
`ABUSE or PROCESS
`
`§ 682
`
`2. A obtains a judgment against B for a debt owed by
`him. After the_ debt has to his knowledge been paid, A takes
`out execution on the judgment. A is subject to liability to
`B for abuse of process.
`
`3. A, an attorney to whom C has entrusted the collec-
`tion of a debt owed by B, assigns C’s claim to D, who resides
`some distance from B.
`In accordance with A’s instructions
`
`D brings an action as assignee and causes a subpoena to
`issue at a time when it is extremely inconvenient for B to
`appear, A’s purpose being to force B to pay the claim rather
`than to undergo the inconvenience of appearance. B not ap-
`pearing, A causes a bench warrant to issue for his arrest
`under which B is fined and execution against his body is
`ordered. Before this order is carried out, B brings his ac-
`tion against A. A is subject to liability to B for abuse of
`process.
`
`“Primarily.” The significance of this word is that there is
`b.
`no action for abuse of process when the process is used for the
`purpose for which it is intended, but there is an incidental motive
`of spite or an ulterior purpose of benefit to» the defendant. Thus
`the entirely justified prosecution of another on a criminal charge,
`does not become abuse of process merely because the instigator
`dislikes the accused and enjoys doing him harm; nor does the in-
`stigation of justified bankruptcy proceedings become abuse of
`process merely because the instigator hopes to derive benefit
`from the closing down of the business of a competitor.
`
`For abuse of process to occur there must be use of the process
`for an immediate purpose other than that for which it was de-
`signed and intended. The usual case of abuse of process is one
`of some form of extortion, using the process to put pressure
`upon the other to compel him to pay a different debt or to take
`some other action or refrain from it. See Illustrations 1, 2 and 3
`above.
`
`Illustration:
`
`4. A is a dangerously insane person. B, her son, insti-
`gates lunacy proceedings against her, seeking to have her
`confined for the protection of herself and others. His mo-
`tive in doing so is to succeed to the control of her property
`after she is committed. This is not abuse of process.
`
`
`
`see Appendix for nope:-tor’: Not», Court Citations. and Grou Reference:
`475
`
`Page 4 of 4
`
`Page 4 of 4