Posts Tagged: "direct infringement"

AIPLA believes that the so-called “single entity” rule for deciding method claim infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), where multiple actors perform the claim steps, as set out in recent Federal Circuit panel decisions as well as in the instant case, is based both on an incorrect construction of Section 271(a) and of the statutory structure of Section 271 as a whole. In concluding that only principles of agency law determine the ambit of such infringement liability, the Federal Circuit has mistakenly strayed from the traditional tort law basis of patent infringement and has created loopholes for method claim infringement that drastically reduce the exclusive rights conferred by validly issued patents – it has, in effect, reduced the scope of method patents until they have little relevancy… Direct infringement should not be limited only to an agency-type relationship between parties…

Recently the Federal Circuit has been interpreting 25 U.S.C. 271(b) to mean that unless the accused infringer directs or controls the actions of the party or parties that are performing the claimed steps, the patentee has no remedy, even though the patentee’s rights would be plainly being violated if the actions of the various partiers were combined. The Federal Circuit decided to go a different route and broke with that line of cases, specifically saying: “We now conclude that this interpretation of section 271(b) is wrong as a matter of statutory construction, precedent, and sound patent policy.” But there were 5 of the 11 Federal Circuit Judges dissenting, and very adamantly so.

Mirror Worlds also alleged that Apple induced its customers to infringe claim 13. The infringement theory in play here is called inducement and is found in 35 U.S.C. § 271(b): a party who “actively induces infringement of a patent shall be liable as an infringer.” Inducement, however, requires that there be a showing of an underlying act of direct infringement. This does not require that Apple themselves engaged in direct infringement, otherwise direct infringement and inducement would be one and the same theory, which they are not. Nevertheless, in order for there to be inducement each and every step of the claim in question must be performed.

I wonder why we are discussing the definition of “use” under § 271(a) at all. It would seem that the Federal Circuit is potentially broadening the definition of “use” under § 271(a) in a manner that expands direct infringement to start to include those types of things that normally would have been infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. Of course, the Supreme Court in Festo together with the Federal Circuit in Honeywell International Inc. v. Hamilton Sundstrand Corporation have eviscerated the doctrine of equivalents to the point of its non-existence. Perhaps Centillion v. Qwest, NTP and other cases yet to come will breathe new life into the theory under the guise of a direct infringement “use” of a system under § 271(a).