• Home
  • About
    • Client Reviews
    • Patent Samples
    • Accolades
    • About Firm
    • Technologies
    • FAQs
  • Services
    • Patent
      • Utility Patents
      • Design Patents
      • Patent Application
      • Patent Defense
      • Patent Enforcement
      • Working with In-House Attorneys
    • Trademark
      • Trademark Search
      • Trademark Application
      • Trademark Enforcement
      • Trademark Defense
    • Licensing
    • Worldwide IP
    • Risk Management
    • Due Diligence
  • Industries
    • Browse Patent Samples
    • Automotive Patents
    • Construction Patents
    • Consumer Products Patents
    • Electronics Patents
    • Food, Beverage, & Other Culinary Patents
    • Manufacturing Patents
    • Medical Products & Devices Patents
    • Optics Patents
    • Software & App Patents
    • Tools & Equipment Patents
  • Learning Resources
    • First-Time Inventor?
    • Why Patent Your Invention in a Bad Economy?
    • Videos on Patents
    • Search 180+ Articles
      • Patent process
        • Overview of Patent Process
          • Patent process timeline and major milestones
          • Patent Process: Invention to Patent Granted (Simplified)
          • Patent process, overall steps and procedures
        • Overview of the examination process within the USPTO
          • Highs and lows of securing patent protection for your invention
          • What is the Patent Office procedure after filing a patent application?
        • Benefits of a Patent Search
          • What is a patent search and How to do it?
        • Patent attorneys, agents and the USPTO can help with the patent process
        • USPTO Website
      • Invention Agreements
        • What is an NDA and when to use them?
        • How to use a contract to protect your invention?
        • Working with others without losing your IP rights
        • Patent Assignments for Independent Contractors
        • Losing Invention Rights When Hiring or Collaborating with Others
        • Avoid Problems: Get an Invention Assignment Agreement
      • Protect Inventions
        • Misconceptions of Provisional Patent Applications
        • Do you need to get your patent attorney to sign an NDA?
        • Can a confidentiality agreement protect me like a patent application?
        • Four types of intellectual property to protect your idea and how to use them
          • Overview of Patents and Intellectual Property
          • Patent protection benefits and why every inventor should consider getting one
          • 8 tips to successfully protect your idea
          • Benefits of Patent Protection
          • Best uses for design patents
        • Reasons to only market your invention after securing patent pendency
          • Dangers of 1 yr grace period under first-inventor-to-file system
          • File a patent application before telling others about the invention
        • Risks and benefits of securing software patent protection
          • Strategy to overcome patentable subject matter rejection
        • Pros and cons of filing a continuation-in-part application
          • What is a continuation patent application?
      • How Patent Applications Work: the Basics
        • How to respond to an office action?
        • Request for non-publication of a patent application
        • Anatomy of a Patent Document
        • How to write a broad patent application?
        • Design patents: pros and cons
      • Patent costs
        • How much does it cost to get a utility patent?
        • Provisional Patent Application: Cheap Alternative?
        • Patent Cost Framework and cash flow
        • Provisional patent application: a cheap option?
        • Cheap provisional patent applications
      • Patent infringement
        • Basics of writing a patent claim for a patent application
        • Patent Marking: Everything you wanted to know
        • Avoiding Patent Infringement
        • Can I Copy My Competitor’s Product?
        • Can I Copy My Competitor’s Product? (Design Patent)
      • Worldwide patents
        • Pros and cons of securing worldwide patent protection and their steps
        • Foreign patent filing to secure protection in other countries
      • Responding to Office Actions
        • Overview of Office Actions
      • Trademarks
        • Trademark Registration: common law, state and federal
        • How to obtain a federal trademark registration?
        • How to select a trademark?
          • Protect your idea when pitching to an investor, potential licensee, or buyer
  • Schedule Consultation
  • Contact

Top-Rated Orange County Patent Lawyer | Helping Inventors in Orange County, Los Angeles County & Beyond | OC Patent Lawyer, Irvine CA

Orange County Patent Attorney

(949) 433-0900
You are here: Home / Patent Infringement / Indirect Infringement / New standard for active inducement of patent infringement

New standard for active inducement of patent infringement

September 25, 2012 by James Yang

Method claims have just become more valuable. The reason is that the Federal Circuit has broadened its scope of protection.

Background information

Under prior patent law, infringement of a method claim could be found through either direct infringement or indirect infringement. Direct infringement of a method claim occurs when a single actor (i.e., person or entity) performs all of the steps in the method claim. (35 USC 271(a)). Indirect infringement, prior to the case discussed below, based on active inducement of infringement under 35 USC 271(b) was found only if a party induced a single entity to perform all of the steps in the method claim. This was made clear in BMC v. Paymentech, where the Federal Circuit held that infringement under active inducement of infringement (271(b)) is found only if a single entity is found to be liable for direct infringement (“single entity rule”).

To design around a method claim, the steps could be divided so that no single person performed all of the steps. One party could encourage two or more actors to perform all of the steps thereby avoiding infringement – as long as that party did not control the other actors, as in a principal-agent or parent-subsidiary relationship. Since no single entity performed all of the steps in the method claim, there is no direct or indirect infringement liability under 271(a) or (b).

Reversal of single entity rule

In Akamai v. Limelight, the Federal Circuit sitting en banc reversed the “single entity rule.” More particularly, the Federal Circuit has now made the standard for direct infringement under 271(a) different from the type of direct infringement that must exist to find indirect infringement liability under 271(b).

The Federal Circuit did not change the standard for direct infringement under 271(a). To be liable for direct infringement under 271(a), a single entity must still perform all of the steps of the method claim. However, to find indirect infringement under 271(b), the Federal Circuit stated that “To be clear, we hold that all the steps of a claimed method must be performed in order to find induced infringement, but that is not necessary to prove that all the steps were committed by a single entity.” The type of direct infringement that must exist to find indirect infringement liability under 271(b) is different from the type of direct infringement under 271(a). Under 271(b), indirect infringement liability can arise based on direct infringement by two or more parties that perform all of the method steps even though these parties would not be liable for direct infringement under 271(a).

Reasons for reversal

In reversing the single entity rule for inducement of infringement under 271(b), the Federal Circuit reviewed the legislative history of 271(b) and also compared the “single entity rule” with similar rules in tort law and criminal law. The legislative history indicated that Congress did not intend that inducement of patent infringement be predicated by a single actor performing all of the steps either directly or indirectly. Rather, Congress’s intent in enacting the 1952 Patent Act was to encompass the possibility of divided infringement or the situation where multiple actors perform all of the steps of the method claim, and the entity that induced the performance of the steps would be liable for active inducement of patent infringement. Additionally, the court compared inducement infringement liability to tort law and criminal law that does not require a single entity to be liable for the actual criminal or tortious act in order to impart liability or guilt on the inducer.

On remand

Akamai was joined with a second lawsuit which also dealt with method claims and active inducement of infringement. In both cases, the alleged inducer outsourced or off-loaded one or all of the steps in the patented method claims to a third party. However, the trial court found no inducement of infringement because no single entity performed all of the steps in the method claims. The Federal Circuit remanded with instructions that: if the alleged inducer knew of the patent, induced others to perform the steps in the method claim, and those steps were actually performed, then the alleged inducer would be liable for active inducement of patent infringement.

Claim drafting tip

Previously, method claims were more difficult to draft for system inventions such as inventions that have a receiver and transmitter each operated by different parties. One set of claims was drafted from the receiver’s point of view so that the entity responsible for receiving a signal would infringe the patent’s method claims. Another set of claims was drafted from the transmitter’s point of view so that the entity responsible for transmitting the signal would infringe the patent’s method claims. Under the holding in Akamai, combination receiver/transmitter method claims are now valuable since a single entity need not perform all of the steps in the method claim to find inducement infringement liability. Nonetheless, it is still advisable to include separate claims for receiver and transmitter situations.

Contact information

I invite you to contact me with your patent questions at (949) 433-0900 or [email protected]. Please feel free to forward this article to your friends. As an Orange County Patent Attorney, I serve Orange County, Irvine, Los Angeles, San Diego, and surrounding cities.

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn

Author

James Yang is a patent attorney. For more than 16 years, James Yang has been representing clients to secure patent protection for their inventions and register trademarks to protect their brands. If you need help, call him at (949) 433-0900. Read More…

Popular Posts

  • Patent process overview
  • Patent process explained
  • How much does a patent cost?
  • Why patent your invention in a bad economy?

Patent Book

Navigating the Patent System - new book by Orange County patent attorney, James Yang

Navigating the Patent System: Learn the patent process and strategies to protect your invention

Read for Free
Buy at Amazon

RECEIVE PATENT ARTICLES

Stay up to date on major changes and get tips on the patent process.

We respect your privacy.

Popular Posts

Patent process overview
Patent process explained
How much does a patent cost?
Trademark process and costs
Patent process and costs

 

Services

Utility Patents
Design Patents
Patent Prosecution Services
Patent Defense Services
Patent-Law Counsel for In-House Attorneys
Trademark Prosecution Services
See All Services

Industries

Automotive Patents
Consumer Products Patents
Culinary Patents
Manufacturing Patents
Medical Patents
Optics Patents
Software & App Patents
See All Industries

Contact

James Yang
OC Patent Lawyer
2372 Morse Ave., Suite #178
Irvine, CA 92614
Tel: (949) 433-0900

Connect

  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn

Sitemaps

Sitemap: Pages | Sitemap: Posts

Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

By accessing this blog, you agree that no attorney-client relationship is formed except by a subsequent written retainer agreement. Also, you agree to not send confidential information unless directed by me to do so. The information posted on this blog is legal information and not legal advice.
Complete Terms of Use
Complete Privacy Policy

ADA Compliance

OC Patent Lawyer aims to ensure that its services are accessible to people with disabilities.
Accessibility Statement

Service Area

From our office in Irvine, California, we serve clients from all areas within Orange County and Los Angeles County, California.

© 2023 · James Yang, Your Entrepreneur and Mid-Size Business Patent Attorney