The Supreme Court increased patent indirect infringement liabilities for companies that make and sell some but not all of the components of the patented product here in the United States and then assemble the patented product overseas. For example, if a competitor makes more than one but not all of the components of the patented product here in the United States, a patent owner … [Read more...]
Patent infringement
Patent infringement occurs when a person directly infringes a patent or indirectly contributes or induces another party to infringe the patent through the manufacture, use, offer to sell, sale or importation of a product covered by a patent claim into the United States.
Browse related articles below.
Irreparable harm easier to prove for grant of patent based injunction
One of the difficulties of securing a patent based injunction was that it was difficult to prove that the harm to the patent owner was irreparable or that monetary compensation was not enough to make the patent owner whole due to the infringement of the patent. In Metalcraft v. Toro Co. (Fed. Cir. 2017), the Federal Circuit provided a basis for establishing irreparable harm … [Read more...]
Overview of patent based injunction
What is a patent-based injunction?A patent-based injunction prohibits an infringer from stepping on the rights of the patent owner. The patent grant gives the patent owner the right to exclude others from selling a patented invention among other things. If the infringer continued to sell its version of the patented invention, then the patent rights of the patent owner would … [Read more...]
Active inducement of infringement in physician patient relationships
Background In Eli Lilly v. Teva (Fed. Cir. 2017), the patent owner (Eli Lilly) sued Teva under a theory of active inducement of infringement. In particular, the patent owner asserted that Teva induced others to infringe Eli Lilly’s patent (U.S. Pat. No. 7,772,209). Teva was not accused of directly infringing the patent itself, but instead was accused of indirectly infringing … [Read more...]
Reigning back applicability of Covered Business Method Review
The applicability of Covered Business Method Review was significantly reigned back by the Federal Circuit in Unwired Planet, LLC. v. Google Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2016). Covered Business Method Review is a type of post grant proceeding at the USPTO wherein a third party, usually a defendant or an accused patent infringer, challenges the validity of a patent in order to avoid patent … [Read more...]
Section 271 determines whether global sales infringes a US patent
Under Section 271(a), activities considered to be infringing a patent when performed wholly in the United States may be transformed into non-infringing activities if some of those activities are performed outside of the United States. In this sense, a company’s global operations may help the company to avoid patent infringement liability. 35 USC Section 271(a) states … [Read more...]
Functional language invalidates patent claim
In AGIS, Inc. v. Life360, Inc. (Fed. Cir. July 28, 2016), AGIS (patent owner) held a patent directed to a cellular communication system that allows multiple cellular phone users to monitor the location of others and their status via a visual display. Symbols generated on the visual display (e.g., user’s cellular phone) represented the locations of the other users. In the … [Read more...]
Process patent blocks importation of product
1. Process patent may be used to block importation of products made with patented method steps Everything begins and ends with the claim set since the claims define the scope of protection afforded under the patent and to a large extent also drive the structure of the patent application. The claims are generally directed to the product or process of the use, manufacture, etc. … [Read more...]