Filewrapper®

Category: Inducing and contributory infringement


Copyright Office Establishes New Electronic DMCA Agent Registration
December 14, 2016
Post by Brandon W. Clark
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) safe harbor provision is one of the most important copyright laws of today's online focused society. As of December 1, 2016, the Copyright Office has enacted a new set of rules one must follow to register a DMCA agent. The new system makes registration cheaper and easier but does require website owners and hosts to take proactive steps to e.......
Read More


Are electronic transmissions "articles"within 19 U.S.C. § 1337?
November 16, 2015
Post by Blog Staff
The United States International Trade Commission (USITC) is authorized by federal law (39 U.S.C. § 1337) to take action against the "importation … of articles that (i) infringe a valid and enforceable U.S. patent."USITC investigations represent an alternative to federal court intellectual property litigation, and may be especially useful where the allegedly infringing act invo.......
Read More


Expanded Powers of the USITC
September 03, 2015
Post by Blog Staff
Under 19 U.S.C. §1337(b)(1) the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) is authorized to investigate allegations of unfair trade acts in the importation of articles that infringe a valid United States patent.  If a violation of the statute is found, the USITC issues an exclusion order that bars the importation of some or all of the infringing products and may issu.......
Read More


Supreme Court Weighs in on Belief of Patent Invalidity and Induced Infringement
June 24, 2015
Post by Blog Staff
Under 35 U.S.C. § 271, a party can be held liable for infringement of a patent under in a number of different ways. The most common liability is for direct, literal infringement of the patent, meaning that accused party actually practices every element of the asserted patent claim(s). The statute also includes provisions for liability based on importation products (§ 271(g)); contributory.......
Read More


Supreme Court Holds Induced Infringement Requires Direct Infringement
June 03, 2014
Post by Blog Staff
This week the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, concluding that an act of direct patent infringement must be present for a claim of inducement of infringement. The decision unanimously held that a defendant may not be liable for inducing infringement of a patent under 35 U.S.C. Section 27(b) when no one has directly infringed the patent under Section 271(a) .......
Read More


Supreme Court Issues Indefiniteness and Inducement Decisions
June 02, 2014
Post by Blog Staff
The Supreme Court this week issued its decisions in two much anticipated IP cases. The Court's decision in Limelight Networks v. Akamai Tech. concludes that at least one underlying act of direct patent infringement must be present for a claim of inducement of infringement. In Nautilus v. BioSig the Court instituted a new standard for indefiniteness, supplanting the existing "insolubly ambiguous" st.......
Read More


2014 Supreme Court Cases Relating to Intellectual Property
January 16, 2014
Post by Blog Staff
On January 10, 2014 the Supreme Court agreed to review a variety of intellectual property cases in the upcoming session, including two patent cases, a copyright case, and a trademark case (including Lanham Act claim). A brief overview of these cases is provided and more detail will be available once decisions are entered by the Court. Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc. (U.S., No. 12-786.) Ques.......
Read More


Exhausting Patent Rights Without a "Sale"
November 22, 2013
Post by Blog Staff
InLifeScan Scotland, LTD v. Shasta Technologies, LLC, the Federal Circuit clarified the ability of a patnet holder to enforce patent rights in a product it has given away, but not "sold." Defendant Shasta Technologies appealed from a decision of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granting LifeScan Scotland a preliminary injunction. The injunction prohibits Shasta f.......
Read More


New and Useful - July 10, 2013
July 10, 2013
Post by Blog Staff
· InConvolve v. Compaq Computer the Federal Circuit affirmed in part the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York ruling that Compaq Computer Corp., Seagate Technology, LLC., and Seagate Technology, Inc. did not misappropriate 11 of 15 alleged trade secrets from Convolve, Inc. In addition, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment that 8 claims of U.......
Read More


New and Useful - March 15, 2013
March 15, 2013
Post by Blog Staff
In Brilliant Instruments, Inc. v. GuideTech, LLC, the Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s order granting summary judgment of non-infringement of three related patents. The three asserted patents relate to circuits that measure the timing errors of digital signals in high-speed microprocessors. The inventor of the three patents left employment with the plaintiff, GuideTech, and founded the.......
Read More


Another Billion Dollar Patent Verdict
January 03, 2013
Post by Blog Staff
Another billion dollar verdict has been handed out in a patent case. Read the verdict in Carnegie Mellon University v. Marvell Technology Group, LTD. here. This latest case continues a string of billion dollar verdicts highlighted by Jonathan Kennedy in the latest edition of MVS Briefs. Carnegie Mellon brought suit alleging infringement of two of its patents, Patent No. 6,201,839 and Patent No. 6,438,180, relat.......
Read More


Court Redefines Knowledge Requirement for Induced Infringement
June 15, 2011
Post by Blog Staff
In a recent decision, authored by Justice Alito and joined by all the other Justices but Justice Kennedy, the Supreme Court redefined the knowledge requirement for finding induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). The case—which centered on a patent for an innovative fryer—provided an opportunity for the Court to elucidate what is required for active inducement of infringement: that the par.......
Read More


Supreme Court to hear case regarding proper standard for proving inducing infringement under 271(b)
October 12, 2010
Post by Blog Staff
In an order today, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a case regarding the necessary intent for inducing infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). The case is Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A., docket number 10-6. The specific question presented is:Whether the legal standard for the state of mind element of a claim for actively inducing infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) is "deliberate indiff.......
Read More


Compliance with industry standards can be used to show patent infringement
September 27, 2010
Post by Blog Staff
In Fujitsu et al v. Netgear, the Federal Circuit held compliance with an industry standard can be sufficient evidence to establish patent infringement. However, this rule only applies when the only way to adhere to the industry standard is to infringe the asserted patent, such that any product that complies with the standard infringes. In this case, the court determined that a party could comply with the standar.......
Read More


Integrating infringing component into larger product does not escape contributory infringement
March 24, 2009
Post by Blog Staff
In a recent decision, the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court's grant of summary judgment of obviousness, but vacated and remanded the summary judgment of no contributory or inducing infringement of two other patents in suit related to recordable optical disk drive technology. The court relied on copyright cases applying the concept of secondary liability in determining that the district court applied .......
Read More


ITC cannot enter limited exclusion order against non-parties
October 21, 2008
Post by Blog Staff
In a decision last week, the Federal Circuit vacated a limited exclusion order issued by the International Trade Commission in the most recent dispute between Qualcomm and Broadcom. The case involved alleged infringement of one of Broadcom's patents relating to chips for wireless communication, specifically directed toward power saving technology. Although Qualcomm was the only respondent in the proceedin.......
Read More


Inducement not shown when accused product can work in an infringing way but doesn't have to
October 07, 2008
Post by Blog Staff
In a recent decision, the Federal Circuit affirmed the International Trade Commission's finding of noninfringement with respect to one patent but reversed and remanded on another. At issue was whether the defendant had imported chipsets that infringed five of the plaintiff's patents in violation of 19 U.S.C. § 1337. The action was dismissed with regard to two of the patents, as any action related .......
Read More


Advice of counsel evidence still relevant to intent to induce infringement
October 06, 2008
Post by Blog Staff
In a recent decision, the Federal Circuit affirmed a jury's finding of infringement of two patents and the related injunction, but reversed the district court's claim construction and the concomitant finding of infringement regarding a third patent. The court affirmed the district court's injunction despite the fact that the patentee licensed, rather than manufactured, the claimed inventions. The in.......
Read More


Federal Circuit affirms district court's decision setting aside $1.5 billion infringement verdict
September 26, 2008
Post by Blog Staff
In a decision yesterday, the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court's grant of judgment as a matter of law based on lack of standing for one patent and non-infringement of a second patent. A jury awarded $1,538,056,702 in damages for infringement, but, as a result of the JMOL, the district court set aside the damages award. The Federal Circuit affirmed. The court agreed with the district court that the ju.......
Read More


Preamble not limiting when duplicative of claim limitations and not added to overcome rejection
April 16, 2008
Post by Blog Staff
In a recent decision, the Federal Circuit held that a district court erred in its construction of several claim terms in a patent, and as a result, vacated the district court's summary judgment of noninfringement and no invalidity. The court affirmed the district court's decisions regarding several other issues, including laches, inequitable conduct, and inventorship.One of the claim terms at issue was i.......
Read More


Finding of induced infringement reversed: insufficient evidence of direct infringement
September 12, 2007
Post by Blog Staff
Today, the Federal Circuit held that hypothetical instances of direct infringement are not enough to establish that a party induced direct infringement of a patent. Instead, there must be evidence of instances of actual infringement in order to establish infringement was induced if there are both infringing and non-infringing ways to operate a device. Because there was no such evidence in this case, the distric.......
Read More


Another patent invalid after KSR, with help from an innovative online litigation strategy
August 15, 2007
Post by Blog Staff
Peter Zura has an interesting post about a case in the Eastern District of Texas (one of the most popular districts for patent cases to be filed) where a patent was held to be both anticipated and, failing that, obvious in light of KSR. The court also addressed the concept of joint infringement, which the Federal Circuit has yet to address in detail, and found that a showing of agency or concerted action is n.......
Read More


Verifying what was already suspected to be the case "does not give rise to a patentable invention"
July 10, 2007
Post by Blog Staff
The Federal Circuit yesterday issued a split opinion dealing with contributory infringement and post-KSR obviousness. The case involved two patents regarding hematopoietic stem cells collected from blood in the umbilical cord after the birth of a child. Such cells have shown promise in the treatment of blood-related disorders. The Federal Circuit held that the patents were obvious because the inventor'.......
Read More


Limitations of a Claim Come from the Claim Language Itself
January 12, 2007
Post by Blog Staff
In E-Pass Technologies ("E-Pass") v. 3Com Corp., Palm Inc., palmOne, Inc. and Handspring, Inc. and Visa International Service Association and Visa U.S.A., Inc. and Palmsource, Inc. ("3Com"), the district court's holding of final summary judgment of non-infringement by 3Com was affirmed by the Federal Circuit. At issue was a patent ("the '311 patent") entitled "Method and Device for Simplifying th.......
Read More


Federal Circuit considers intent required for inducing infringement en banc
December 14, 2006
Post by Blog Staff
The Federal Circuit resolved a perceived conflict in its case law regarding the necessary level of intent required for a defendant to be found liable for inducing infringement of a patent. The court considered one subsection of DSU Medical Corp. v. JMS Co. en banc to resolve the conflict. The court held that to prove the intent necessary for liability for inducing infringement, there must be "evide.......
Read More


View all Filewrapper® Posts

Search Posts

Purpose

The attorneys of McKee, Voorhees & Sease, P.L.C. designed this blog as an informational and educational resource about intellectual property law for our clients, other attorneys, and the public as a whole. Our goal is to provide cutting-edge information about recent developments in intellectual property law, including relevant case law updates, proposed legislation, and intellectual property law in the news.

Disclaimer

McKee, Voorhees & Sease, P.L.C. provides this blog for general informational purposes only. By using this blog, you agree that the information on this blog does not constitute legal or other professional advice and no attorney-client or other relationship is created between you and McKee, Voorhees & Sease, P.L.C. Do not consider this blog to be a substitute for obtaining legal advice from a qualified, licensed attorney. While we try to revise this blog on a regular basis, it may not reflect the most current legal developments. We consciously refrain from expressing opinions on this blog and instead, offer it as a form of information and education, however if there appears an expression of opinion, realize that those views are indicative of the individual and not of the firm as a whole.

Connect with MVS

Enter your name and email address to recieve the latest news and updates from us and our attorneys.

Subscribe to: MVS Newsletter

Subscribe to: Filewrapper® Blog Updates

  I have read and agree to the terms and conditions of McKee, Voorhees & Sease, P.L.C.