Archive | Patent Infringement

Divided Infringement Means No Patent Infringement, Says Judge Gilstrap

Claims to a computer system for providing users with location information about an object were not directly infringed where the claims recited a step of user input not under the direction or control of the party requesting and receiving the input.  Accordingly, the court granted a motion for summary judgment of noninfringement of these claims.  […]

Continue Reading

How Did the Supreme Court’s Akamai Decision Change the Law of Divided Patent Infringement?

The Federal Circuit has given new life to a patent owner alleging that actions of multiple parties constitute direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a).  Mankes v. Vivid Seats Ltd., No 15-1500 (Fed. Cir. April 22, 2016).  The patent owner had alleged direct infringement of its patent by parties who carried out only some and […]

Continue Reading

Does the New Akamai Decision Breach the Logical Framework of Patent Infringement Law?

The Federal Circuit, sitting en banc and in a per curiam opinion, has held a party can be liable as a direct patent infringer under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) even though it did not make, use, sell, or offer to sell every element of the claimed invention. Akamai Tech., Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., No. […]

Continue Reading

Divided Infringement Results in Judgment on Pleadings on Induced Infringement

Finding that a complaint failed to sufficiently allege that the defendant exercised direction or control over all asserted steps of a method patent claim, a court has dismissed a complaint alleging induced infringement under FRCP 12(c). Robert Mankes v. Vivid Seats, Limited, No. 5:13-CV-717-FL, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24327 (E.D.N.C. Feb 26, 2015). Based on […]

Continue Reading

Pleading Indirect and Willful Patent Infringement Requires Specific Allegations

Claims for induced, contributory, and willful patent infringement were dismissed (without prejudice) because the plaintiff failed to allege facts sufficient to support its claims.  Unisone Strategic IP, Inc. v. Life Techs. Corp., No. 3:13-cv-1278-GPC-JMA (S.D. Cal. Oct. 22, 2013).  The plaintiff had alleged infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,996,538, directed to “[a] system and method […]

Continue Reading

Patent Infringement, Summary Judgment, and Infringement Contentions

A patent infringement defendant’s motion for summary judgment of non-infringement was denied where there were questions of fact concerning whether the defendant directly infringed asserted claims when it tested the accused system, even if it did not directly infringe otherwise. Ameranth, Inc. v. Papa John’s USA, Inc., No. 12-CV-729 JLS (NLS), 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS […]

Continue Reading

When Is a Software Patent Case Ripe for Summary Judgment?

Lawyers for patent infringement defendants have a new Federal Circuit case to point to when explaining to frustrated clients why an early summary judgment motion of non-infringement is not always a good expenditure of resources. In Baron Services, Inc. v. Media Weather Innovations, LLC, Nos. 2012-1285, -1443 (Fed. Cir. May 7, 2013), a panel majority of Judges […]

Continue Reading

Yet Further Clarification on Indirect Divided and Joint Infringement

Under the doctrine of divided infringement, patent claims directed to a slot machine were properly found not to be directly infringed. Aristocrat Tech., Australia v. Int’l. Game Tech., No. 2010-1426 (Fed. Cir. March 13, 2013). However, for the second time in as many weeks, the Federal Circuit remanded a case to a District Court for […]

Continue Reading

Further Clarification on Indirect Divided and Joint Infringement

Holding that a district court improperly applied the doctrine of joint patent infringement with respect to indirect infringement, while agreeing with the lower court’s reasoning concerning direct infringement, the Federal Circuit has vacated a summary judgment of non-infringement. Move, Inc. v. Re-Max Int’l., Inc., No. 2012-1342 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 4, 2013). Claim 1 of U.S. Patent […]

Continue Reading

Patent Complaint Satisfying Form 18 (Reluctantly) Allowed

Although denying a motion to dismiss a complaint of direct patent infringement, a Massachusetts District Court has pointedly stated that “[i]t is difficult to reconcile the simplistic approach for asserting a patent infringement claim contemplated by Rule 84 and Form 18 [of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure] with the pleading standards announced in [Ashcroft v. Iqbal, […]

Continue Reading

Powered by WordPress. Designed by WooThemes