Supreme Court Rejects a Good Faith Belief of Invalidity as a Defense to Inducement

A party is liable for inducing infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) if it knowingly causes another party to perform the acts of infringement.  Because knowledge of infringement is a requirement for inducing infringement, the inducer’s good faith belief that the activities he is inducing are non...
Read More

Federal Circuit Reaffirms the Single-Entity Rule for Joint Infringement

Software patents often include method claims, where inventiveness generally depends on the functionality of the software rather than unique hardware structures.  However, if not properly claimed, the value of method claims can be significantly diminished, particularly in light of recent Supreme Cou...
Read More

Lexmark Part 2: Federal Circuit Reconsidering Contractual Restrictions on the Doctrine of Patent Exhaustion

Part 2 of our discussion of the Lexmark case focuses on the ability to contract around the doctrine of patent exhaustion. Current law prevents a patent holder from suing a customer for using a product that the patent holder sold to the customer.  However, a patent holder may generally limit the cu...
Read More

Lexmark Part I: Federal Circuit to Reconsider Patent Exhaustion for International Sales

The Federal Circuit will soon decide whether the patent exhaustion doctrine, which limits the extent U.S. patent owners can control patented articles after they are sold, is applicable when the sale occurs outside the U.S.  Under current Federal Circuit precedent, the patent exhaustion doctrine is ...
Read More

Supreme Court Reviewing Whether a Good Faith Belief in Invalidity Serves as a Defense to Inducement

On December 5, 2014, the Supreme Court granted a petition for writ of certiorari for Commil, USA, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc.  The Supreme Court will hear the case on March 31, 2015.  The Court will review whether a defendant’s belief that a patent is invalid serves as a defense to induced infrin...
Read More

U.S. Supreme Court Holds that Federal Circuit must give More Deference to Trial Courts

In Teva v. Sandoz, 574 U.S. ___ (2015), available at http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-854_o7jp.pdf, the Supreme Court held that, in determining issues in claim construction, the Federal Circuit must review a trial court’s factual conclusions for clear error.  The Federal Circuit may ...
Read More