1 / 13

Today’s Agenda

Today’s Agenda. Filling in the Gaps in Your Knowledge of “Basic” Patent Law Duty of Candor – an historical case (1945) Indirect Infringement in the 1952 Patent Act § 271(c) Contributory Infringement, and § 271(b) Inducing Infringement. More Substantive Law.

alden
Télécharger la présentation

Today’s Agenda

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Today’s Agenda • Filling in the Gaps • in Your Knowledge of • “Basic” Patent Law • Duty of Candor – an historical case (1945) • Indirect Infringement in the 1952 Patent Act • § 271(c) Contributory Infringement, and • § 271(b) Inducing Infringement Adv.Pat.Law Seminar - rjm

  2. More Substantive Law • Duty of Candor - historical case (1945) • Why should the PO have lost this one? • Why not?Indirect Infringement v. Limiting the MONOPOLY – misuse, 271c, 271b, and even CLAIM INTERPRETATION • Generally: advocacy in action. Spotting cut-and-pastes, cut from the party’s briefs, pasted into the judge’s opinion Adv.Pat.Law Seminar - rjm

  3. Precision Instruments • Sleepless nights: what do you think YOU might have done, at various stages of the unfolding story? Why might you NOT do, although we with hindsight know it would have looked better? How helpful is it to consult ‘outside ethics counsel’? Adv.Pat.Law Seminar - rjm

  4. Precision Instruments • Sleepless nights: what do you think YOU might have done, at various stages of the unfolding story? Why might you NOT do, although we with hindsight know it would have looked better? How helpful is it to consult ‘outside ethics counsel’? • Which lawyer’s position - during the unfolding of the events, or during the later infringement litigation – was the scariest? • What do you want to know to decide who is the baddest bad guy? • Does the outcome sit well with you? Adv.Pat.Law Seminar - rjm

  5. Whoever does stuff with something that isn’t the WHOLE invention, but IS a ‘material part’ with KNOWLEDGE of the patent AND of the relationship of the part to the whole when that PART isn’t a staple of article of commerce AND that part doesn’t have a substantial non-infringing use [is in big trouble.] (c) Whoever offers to sell or sells within the United States or imports into the United States a component of a patented machine, manufacture, combination or composition, or a material or apparatus for use in practicing a patented process, constituting a material part of the invention, knowing the same to be especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of such patent, and not a staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use, shall be liable as a contributory infringer. 271 c Adv.Pat.Law Seminar - rjm

  6. 271 b and c (b) Whoever actively induces infringement of a patent shall be liable as an infringer. (c) Whoever offers to sell or sells within the United States or imports into the United States a component of a patented machine, manufacture, combination or composition, or a material or apparatus for use in practicing a patented process, constituting a material part of the invention, knowing the same to be especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of such patent, and not a staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use, shall be liable as a contributory infringer. Is KNOWLEDGE required in BOTH? What knowledge? Adv.Pat.Law Seminar - rjm

  7. No patent owner otherwise entitled to relief for infringement or contributory infringement of a patent shall be denied relief or deemed guilty of misuse or illegal extension of the patent right by reason of his having done one or more of the following: (1) derived revenue from acts which if performed by another without his consent would constitute contributory infringement of the patent; (2) licensed or authorized another to perform acts which if performed without his consent would constitute contributory infringement of the patent; (3) sought to enforce his patent rights against infringement or contributory infringement; … Dawson – 271(d) Adv.Pat.Law Seminar - rjm

  8. Dawson – 271(d) (d) [ENACTED AFTER DAWSON] (4) refused to license or use any rights to the patent; or (5) conditioned the license of any rights to the patent or the sale of the patented product on the acquisition of a license to rights in another patent or purchase of a separate product, unless, in view of the circumstances, the patent owner has market power in the relevant market for the patent or patented product on which the license or sale is conditioned. Adv.Pat.Law Seminar - rjm

  9. Dawson – 271(c) and (d) Compare Proofs and Arguments regarding “Market Power” and “relevant market” - if AI plans to assert misuse or anti-trust violation - if PO plans to seek lost profits Who wants to show: * ABSENCE/PRESENCE of non-infringing substitutes * 2-player Market/multi-player market Adv.Pat.Law Seminar - rjm

  10. Dawson Story: How come R&H has a patent on method ONLY? Concessions/Stipulations/Narrowing of Issues How does Court determine what 271c and d mean?? Who is the star witness? Adv.Pat.Law Seminar - rjm

  11. Fromberg Story: How come Fromberg didn’t assert its other patent? Concessions/Stipulations/Narrowing of Issues What is the difference between 271 b and c in this case? Adv.Pat.Law Seminar - rjm

  12. CR Bard v. ACS Story: How come CR Bard doesn’t have a patent on the catheter? Concessions/Stipulations/Narrowing of Issues?? What is the difference between 271 b and c in this case? Adv.Pat.Law Seminar - rjm

  13. Next Week Liz Durham Drug Patents -3. The International Scene: TRIPS and the proposal for compulsory licensing. Spencer Goodson Markman Hearings -2. What happens in suit #2 to the Markman Ruling of suit #1? Adv.Pat.Law Seminar - rjm

More Related