Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Multiple Joint Infringers of Process Claims: How Close Is Close Enough?
Typically, in an action concerning infringement of a process patent, the activities of an individual party are alleged to infringe one or more of the process patent claims. Under certain circumstances, however, the combined activities of two or more parties may constitute infringement of a process patent claim. Often, courts analyze these situations by determining if 'some connection' exists between the parties whose activities are being combined. This standard, in our view, ultimately defines more activities as infringing than is warranted. A more appropriate standard would be a 'working in concert' standard.
Process claims often contain more than one step so that, in some cases, the combination of the activities of two or more parties may fulfill all of the steps of a multi-step claim. For example, one court found a defendant liable for direct infringement although another party performed one of the steps of the asserted claim. Metal Film Co. v. Milton Corp., 316 F. Supp. 96, 110 n.12 (S.D.N.Y. 1970). The case law addressing when the combination of activities is sufficient for infringement has arisen mainly at the district court level, and courts have found that certain combined activities constitute direct infringement while other combinations do not. Generally speaking, if multiple parties perform different steps of a process claim, a court may find direct infringement if the parties have 'some connection' to each other. See Faroudja Labs., Inc. v. Dwin Elecs., Inc., 1999 WL 111788, *5 (N.D. Cal. 1999). This standard is open to interpretation, and, not surprisingly, courts have considered how much of a connection is necessary in order to tack together the parties' activities to find infringement.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Why So Many Great Lawyers Stink at Business Development and What Law Firms Are Doing About It
Why is it that those who are best skilled at advocating for others are ill-equipped at advocating for their own skills and what to do about it?
Bankruptcy Sales: Finding a Diamond In the Rough
There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.
The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year Later
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
A Lawyer's System for Active Reading
Active reading comprises many daily tasks lawyers engage in, including highlighting, annotating, note taking, comparing and searching texts. It demands more than flipping or turning pages.
Protecting Innovation in the Cyber World from Patent Trolls
With trillions of dollars to keep watch over, the last thing we need is the distraction of costly litigation brought on by patent assertion entities (PAEs or "patent trolls"), companies that don't make any products but instead seek royalties by asserting their patents against those who do make products.