• Home
  • About
    • Client Reviews
    • Patent Samples
    • Accolades
    • About Firm
    • Technologies
    • FAQs
  • Services
    • Patent Prosecution Services
    • Patent Defense Services
    • Patent Enforcement Services
    • Trademark Search Services
    • Trademark Prosecution Services
    • Trademark Enforcement Services
    • Trademark Defense Services
    • Patent and Trademark Licensing Services
    • Worldwide Patent and Trademark Services
    • Business Risk Management
    • Mergers and Acquisition Consulting
  • Industries
    • Automotive Patents
    • Consumer Products Patents
    • Food, Beverage, & Other Culinary Patents
    • Manufacturing Patents
    • Medical Products & Devices Patents
    • Optics Patents
    • Software & App Patents
    • See Patents in More Industries
  • Learning Resources
    • Videos on Patents
    • Search 180+ Articles
      • Patent process
        • Overview of Patent Process
          • Patent process timeline and major milestones
          • Patent Process: Invention to Patent Granted (Comprehensive)
          • 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
          • Continuation patent application and related divisional and continuation in part
      • 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 / S.Ct. defines patent indirect infringement under Section 271(f)(1)

S.Ct. defines patent indirect infringement under Section 271(f)(1)

March 21, 2017 by James Yang

Indirect Patent InfringementThe 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 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 can now threaten that company with patent indirect infringement under §§ 271(f)(1) and (2).

I.  S. Ct. defines “substantial” for indirect infringement under Section 271(f)(1)

In Life Technologies v. Promega (S. Ct. 2017), the Supreme Court defined how the term “substantial” in §271(f)(1) is to be interpreted. In particular, the Supreme Court indicated that the term “substantial” refers to a quantitative aspect and not a qualitative aspect. This is better understood in context after reading §271(f)(1) directed to the active inducement of infringement under the broader term indirect infringement.

Section 271(f)(1) states that:

“whoever without authority supplies or causes to be supplied in or from the United States all or a substantial portion of the components of the patented invention, where such components are uncombined in whole or in part, in such manner as to actively induce the combination of such components outside of the United States in a manner that would infringe the patent if such combination occurred within the United States, shall be liable as an infringer.” (emphasis added).

II.  Section 271(f)(1) involves either all or a substantial portion of the components of the patented invention

Section 271(f) deals with two different types of indirect infringement situations.  One where the competitor manufactures all of the components of the patented product but assembles them overseas.  The other is where the competitor manufactures a substantial portion of the components of the patented invention.

If a competitor attempts to avoid patent infringement liability by making all of the components of the patented invention here in United States but assemble the components outside of the United States to avoid patent infringement liability, § 271(f)(1) prevents these competitors from avoiding patent infringement liability.

III.        S. Ct. defines “substantial” only in reference to quantitative aspect, not qualitatively

In Life Technologies, the Supreme Court only dealt with determining the meaning of the word “substantial” in Section 271(f) for indirect infringement.  In particular, the Supreme Court removed the qualitative aspect of the component in determining whether the manufacture of any component is substantial. The Supreme Court is directing the lower courts to conduct a pure numerical analysis on the number of components that the competitor made to determine whether that number would be a substantial portion of the components of the patented invention under § 271(f)(1).

Based on Life Technologies, it is now unknown whether a competitor can avoid patent infringement liability by making some of the components of the patented invention in the United States but assembling these components outside of the United States.  Section 271(f)(1) makes manufacturing less than all of the components of the patented invention an infringement of the patent if patent owner can show that the competitor made a substantial portion of the components of the patented invention.

IV.  Lower courts need to litigate how to determine the number of components of the patented invention and what is a substantial portion of the components

The issue in Life Technologies was what constitutes a substantial portion of the components of the patented invention.  Does manufacturing only one of the components of the patented invention in the United States constitute “substantial”?  What if that one component was the crucial component of the patented invention, would manufacturing of that one component be “substantial”?  Under Life Technologies, the importance of the component is not relevant to determination of whether that component is substantial.  The number of components of the invention is important.  The issue now is how many components of the patented invention must be made in the United States to constitute “substantial”?

The Supreme Court defined “substantial” in Life Technologies as being solely related to the numerical aspect.  However, the Supreme Court left a lot of the work for the lower courts to hash out with respect to the definition of “substantial.” The black letter law is that the term “substantial” does not refer to the qualitative aspects of the components but solely refers to the quantitative number of components manufactured here in the United States.  Also, the Supreme Court expressly found that a competitor could not be liable for patent indirect infringement under § 271(f)(1) if the competitor only made a single component.  One component could never be considered a substantial portion.

V.  Sections 271(f)(1) and (2) work together to global patent indirect infringement

This does not mean that the company will avoid patent infringement liability, it just means that the company will avoid patent infringement liability under 271(f)(1). The statute also has another section, §271(f)(2) (contributory infringement) which works together with §271(f)(1), which recites that:

“whoever without authority supplies or causes to be supplied in or from the United States any component of the patented invention that is specially made or specially adapted for use in the invention and not a staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use, where such component is uncombined in whole or in part, knowing that such component is so made or adapted and intending that such component will be combined outside of the United States in a manner that would infringe a patent if such combination occurred within the United States, shall be liable as an infringer.”

So long as the one component is not especially made or especially adapted for use in the patented invention or is a staple article or commodity, then under § 271(f)(2), there would be no infringement under this section as well.

A company that manufactures more than one but less than all of the components of the patented invention, may be liable for patent infringement liability but the issue now needs to be litigated.

Second, the Supreme Court in the footnote made clear that this decision had nothing to say on how to identify the components or the number of components of the patented invention or whether and how the inquiry relates to the elements of the patent claim. In other words, the Supreme Court is leaving it to the lower courts to come up with a framework on how to identify the number of components of a patented invention and the number of components that needs to be made in the U.S. to constitute a substantial number.

I invite you to contact me with your patent questions (949) 433-0900. 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…

Professional Profile

James Yang Business Patent Attorney

James Yang, Patent Attorney

James Yang is a patent attorney whose practice encompasses all area of intellectual law including patents, trademarks, copyrights and trade secrets. He serves clients within Orange County and Los Angeles County, California.

About James Yang

Popular Posts

  • Patent process overview
  • Patent process explained
  • How much does a patent cost?

New Book Release

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

Peer Recognition

top attorney patent application
client choice patent application
Rated by Super Lawyers
AV Preeminent rating

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

  • Patent Prosecution Services
    Patent Defense Services
    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.

© 2022 · James Yang, Your Entrepreneur and Mid-Size Business Patent Attorney