Today's Date: December 19, 2014 Search | Home | Contact | Services | Patent Attorney | Patent Search | Provisional Patent Application | Patent Application | Software Patent | Confidentiality Agreements

Posts Tagged ‘ 35 USC 271 ’

The Impact of the CAFC’s Joint Infringement Conundrum on Protecting Interactive Technologies

Posted: Tuesday, Apr 19, 2011 @ 12:12 pm | Written by Eric Guttag | 19 comments
| Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in: Authors, Business Methods, Computers, Eric Guttag, Federal Circuit, IP News, Articles, Patent Litigation, Patents, Software

The conundrum created by the Federal Circuit’s joint infringement doctrine and its impact on protecting interactive computer-based technologies got worse last week with McKesson Technologies, Inc. v. Epic Systems Corp. McKesson Technologies involved a patented interactive electronic method for communicating between healthcare providers and patients about personalized web pages for doctors.  Judge Linn’s majority opinion (and a “thin” at majority at that) ruled that, because the initial step of the patented method was performed by the patient while the remaining steps were performed by the software provided by the healthcare provider, there was no infringement, direct, indirect, joint or otherwise of the patented method.

A Discussion of SEB v. Montgomery Ward—Developments in the Law of Inducement and Direct Infringement

Posted: Sunday, Mar 7, 2010 @ 7:11 pm | Written by Michael Kasdan | Comments Off
| Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Posted in: Authors, Federal Circuit, IP News, Articles, Patent Litigation, Patents

The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in SEB S.A. v. Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc. (Fed. Cir. Feb. 5, 2010) (“SEB”) addresses a defendant’s liability for inducement as well as for direct infringement. It is significant in that it may expand the scope of infringement liability, particularly for foreign defendants, in multiple respects.  What follows is an Executive Summary of SEB v. Montgomery Ward: Extending the Reach of U.S. Patent Laws to Foreign Defendants—Developments in the Law of Direct Infringement and Inducement. A PDF copy of the full article is available here.

Since 2006, DSU Medical Corp. v. JMS Co., 471 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (en banc) (“DSU”), has significantly improved defendants’ chances of defeating a charge of inducement. In DSU, the en banc Federal Circuit held that the “specific intent” requirement necessary to establish inducement requires that the plaintiff prove that the defendant either knew or should have known that his acts would induce actual infringement, and that this necessarily required the defendant to have knowledge of the patent at issue. Merely establishing that the defendant intended to induce the acts that happened to constitute infringement is not sufficient.