First - a disclaimer. I do not practice in the area of patent infringement. I only practice patent prosecution - which is practicing patent law before the U.S. Patent Office. The US Patent Office has no jurisdiction over questions relating to infringement of patents. In examining applications for patent, no determination is made as to whether the invention sought to be patented infringes any prior patent.
I have, however been involved as a technical adviser in several patent lawsuits in the U.S., Japan, and several European countries. This makes me somewhat dangerous.
But small business people do need to understand the basics of patent infringement. So here are the basics.
35 U.S.C. 271
Patent infringement law is defined in 35 U.S.C. 271. As I have mentioned before U.S.C. means United States Code. We will review some of the key points in 35 U.S.C. 271. I will not bore you with every aspect - particularly some of the special rules involving patents on recombinant DNA and RNA.
Some of the key laws:
As you can probably imagine the terms makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention have been argued in court many, many times and thus there is voluminous case law that defines those terms. We will not attempt to review all of this. But you do need to understand that all four of these categories apply to patent infringement.
Active inducement of patent infringement is a complex subject. It basically refers to the situation in which an end user or consumer infringes a patent, but was actively induced to do so by a third party. This often happens with method claims. That third party may not directly infringe because they never practice the method themselves, but they induce the end user to practice the method.
This one defines contributory infringement. It is possible for a foreign company to try to circumvent a U.S. patent by importing into the U.S. only a portion of the invention, with the intent of then selling it to others who then create a final product or process that infringes the patent. Under this doctrine of contributory infringement the patent holder can sue the foreign company as a contributor to patent infringement.
(d) 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; (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.
This paragraph is a mouthful but is a further clarification of what is and is not contributory infringement. It is clarifying the rights of the patent holder, basically pointing out that that the patent holder can still pursue contributory infringement even if he/she has a) made money from the patent, b) licensed the technology to another, or c) refused to license the technology.
You can probably see this one. It basically says that if a United States company supplies or causes to be supplied the fundamental components of a U.S. patented invention in an uncombined form and ships them overseas where they can be combined then that company can be guilty of patent infringement because they manufactured in the United States, even though they did not manufacture in complete form.
(2) it becomes a trivial and nonessential component of another product.
This is an important one for you to understand. If you have a process patent in the United States and a foreign company uses that process in his home country to manufacture a product, then offers to sell,sells, or uses that product in the United States then that company is an infringer. That company may be free to sell that product in many other countries in which you ace no patents - but not in the United states.
This is a very brief to the essentials of patent infringement in the United States. If you really have an infringement issue - consult a professional.
Return to the Top of This Page
The Business of Patents Home Page
Return to Home Page
Mike Ervin - Cost Effective Small Business Patent Protection.
If you have any questions on on this site - please feel free to contact me.