By Steve Hall
Last week, in a near-unanimous opinion rendered without dissent, the Supreme Court emphasized quantity over quality, holding that it is not an infringement under the Patent Act to supply a single component of a multi-component product being manufactured abroad. Life Technologies Corp. v. Promega Corp., No. 14-1538, — S.Ct. –, 2017 WL 685531 (Feb. 22, 2017). The particular section of the Act before the Supreme Court was 35 U.S.C. §271(f)(1), which makes it possible for infringement to arise from “[supplying] or [causing] to be supplied in or from the United States all or a substantial portion of the components of a patented invention.” The purpose of the statute is to prevent a domestic manufacturer from making all, or substantially all, components for an infringing product in the U.S., while shipping the components overseas for assembly. Id. The combining of components overseas must be performed “in a manner that would infringe the patent if such combination occurred within the United States.” 35 U.S.C. §271(f)(1).
In terms of the discrete issue before it, the Supreme Court held that “when a product is made abroad and all components but a single commodity article are supplied from abroad, the activity” does not infringe. Life Technologies Corp., at *8. The product at issue was a Continue reading Supreme Court Narrows Infringement for Sending Component(s) Abroad – But Only by a Little Bit
Last week, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals decided a case that sheds further light on a relatively new phenomenon associated with the term “reverse patent troll.” (Phigenix, Inc. v. ImmunoGen, Inc., January 9, 2017.) The notion of “abusive patent litigation” in the language of the Patent Office has existed for more than a decade. Often, the perpetrators are shell companies who sue or threaten legal action against others and who enjoy relative impunity, as it is difficult to recover fees or assert counterclaims against them. In the traditional sense, an abusive patent litigant is a company that obtains patents – even weak ones that never should have been granted over prior art in the first place – and uses them to extract settlements from companies that sell a product or provide a service. In this newest iteration, however, the victim is the one who owns a patent. The “play” here is that the aggressor will challenge the company’s patent if its demands are not met.
In the case last week, the patent owner was ImmunoGen, Inc. It licensed its patent over a cancer-fighting antibody to Genentech. The challenger was Phigenix, Inc., the new owner of a patent it had acquired only recently, which it claimed overlapped with the ImmunoGen patent. Phigenix threatened to challenge the ImmunoGen patent unless an agreement to license its newly acquired patent was Continue reading Abusive Patent Litigants Find a New Angle
By Matt Lubozynski
Yesterday, in a unanimous opinion, the United States Supreme Court broadened what can be considered an “article of manufacture” for design patent infringement. See Samsung Electronics Co. v. Apple Inc., No. 15-777, — S. Ct. —, 2016 WL 7078449 (Dec. 7, 2016). “Patent protection is available for a ‘new, original and ornamental design for an article of manufacture.’” Id. at *2 (quoting 35 U.S.C. §171(a)). This is often referred to as a design patent. A design patent is “infringed if, in the eye of an ordinary observer, giving such attention as a purchaser usually gives, two designs are substantially the same.” Id. (citation and quotation omitted). Damages for design patent infringement are permitted under 35 U.S.C. § 289. §289 states that an infringer “shall be liable to the owner to the extent of his total profit, but not less than $250[.]” 35 U.S.C. § 289. The Supreme Court provided a two-part test for “[a]rriving at a damages award under §289[.]” Id. at *4. “First, identify the ‘article of manufacture’ to which the infringed design has been applied. Second, calculate the infringer’s total profit made on that article of manufacture.” Id.
In the current case, Apple sued Samsung in 2011 for infringing three of its design patents relating to its iPhone. Id. at *4. The design patents at issue covered a black rectangular front face with rounded corners, a rectangular front face with Continue reading Supreme Court Broadens “Article of Manufacture” for Design Patent Infringement, Declines to Do Anything Else