Patent infringement

(Redirected from Patent dispute) Breach of the rights conferred by a patent

Patent law
Overviews
Patent Patent claim History Economics Criticism
Procedural concepts
Application Prosecution Opposition Valuation Licensing Infringement
Patentability requirements and related concepts
Patentable subject matter Inventorship Novelty Inventive step and non-obviousness Industrial applicability Utility Person skilled in the art Prior art
Other legal requirements
Sufficiency of disclosure Unity of invention
By region / country
Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) Australia Canada China Europe Germany Japan Netherlands United States
By specific subject matter
Biological Business method Chemical Insurance Software Tax
See also
Patent analysis Pirate Party Category Glossary
v t e

Intellectual property

Authors' rights Copyleft Copyright Database right Farmers' rights Geographical indication Indigenous intellectual property Industrial design right Integrated circuit layout design protection Moral rights Patent Peasants' rights Plant breeders' rights Plant genetic resources Related rights Supplementary protection certificate Trade dress Trade secret Trademark Utility model
Related topics
Abandonware Artificial intelligence and copyright Brand protection Copyright abolition Copyright troll Criticism of copyright Bioprospecting Biopiracy Idea–expression distinction Limitations and exceptions to copyright Fair dealing Fair use Paraphrasing Right to quote Orphan work Patent troll Pirate Party Public domain Outline of intellectual property Outline of patents Higher categories: Property and Property law
v t e

Patent infringement is an unauthorized act of - for example - making, using, offering for sale, selling, or importing for these purposes a patented product. Where the subject-matter of the patent is a process, infringement involves the act of using, offering for sale, selling or importing for these purposes at least the product obtained by the patented process. In other words, patent infringement is the commission of a prohibited act with respect to a patented invention without permission from the patent holder. Permission may typically be granted in the form of a license. The definition of patent infringement may vary by jurisdiction.

The scope of the patented invention or the extent of protection is defined in the claims of the granted patent. In other words, the terms of the claims inform the public of what is not allowed without the permission of the patent holder.

Patents are territorial, and infringement is only possible in a country where a patent is in force. For example, if a patent is granted in the United States, then anyone in the United States is prohibited from making, using, selling or importing the patented item, while people in other countries may be free to exploit the patented invention in their country. The scope of protection may vary from country to country, because the patent is examined – or in some countries not substantively examined – by the patent office in each country or region and may be subject to different patentability requirements.

Overview

Typically, a party (other than the patentee or licensee of the patentee) that manufactures, imports, uses, sells, or offers for sale patented technology without permission/license from the patentee, during the term of the patent and within the country that issued the patent, is considered to infringe the patent.

To determine if a patent has been infringed, a specific test is used. The test varies from country to country, but in general it requires that the infringing party's product (or method, service, and so on) falls within one or more of the (independent) claims of the patent. The process employed involves "reading" a claim onto the technology of interest. If all of the claim's elements are found in the technology, the claim is said to "read on" the technology; if a single element from the claim is missing from the technology, the claim does not literally read on the technology and the technology generally does not infringe the patent with respect to that claim, except if the doctrine of equivalents is considered applicable.

In response to allegations of infringement, an accused infringing party typically asserts one or more of the following:

that it was not practicing the patented invention, i.e. the invention claimed in the patent (the claims define the extent of protection conferred by a patent);
that it was not performing any infringing act in the territory covered by the patent (patents are indeed territorial in nature);
that the patent has expired (since patents have a limited patent term, i.e. a limited lifetime);
that the patent (or the particular claim(s) alleged to be infringed) is invalid, because the invention in question does not meet the patentability requirements or includes a formal defect, this rendering the patent invalid or unenforceable;
that it has obtained a license under the patent.

The parties may also resolve their dispute in a settlement, which may involve a licensing agreement, such as a cross-licensing agreement. Private settlements may not always serve the public interest, "because litigating patent disputes to completion tends to generate positive externalities, by clarifying the limits of patent protection if the patent is upheld or encouraging wider use of the innovation if the patent is invalidated".

Indirect infringement

In certain jurisdictions, there is a particular case of patent infringement called "indirect infringement." Indirect infringement can occur, for instance, when a device is claimed in a patent and a third party supplies a product which can only be reasonably used to make the claimed device.

Clearance searches and opinions

A clearance search, also called freedom-to-operate (FTO) search or infringement search, is a search done on issued patents or on pending patent applications to determine if a product or process infringes any of the claims of the issued patents or pending patent applications. A clearance search may also include expired art that acts as a 'safe harbor' permitting the product or process to be used based on patents in the public domain. These searches are often performed by one or more professional patent searchers who are under the direction of one or more patent attorneys.

Clearance searches may also be performed on a regular basis (e.g., monthly) if an individual is concerned about patenting activity in a particular industry or with respect to a particular product.

A clearance search can be followed by a clearance opinion, i.e. a legal opinion provided by one or more patent attorneys as to whether a given product or process infringes the claims of one or more issued patents or pending patent applications. Clearance opinions may be done in combination with a "validity and enforceability" opinion. A validity and enforceability opinion is a legal opinion as to whether a given patent is valid and/or enforceable. In other words, a validity opinion is a legal opinion or letter in which a patent attorney or patent agent analyzes an issued patent and provides an opinion on how a court might rule on its validity or enforceability. Validity opinions are often sought before litigation related to a patent. The average cost of a validity opinion (according to one 2007 survey) is over $15,000, with an infringement analysis adding $13,000.

The cost of these opinions for U.S. patents can run from tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars (or more) depending upon the particular patent, the number of defenses and prior art references, the length of the prosecution file history, and the complexity of the technology in question.

An exculpatory opinion (setting forth reasons the patent is not infringed, or providing other defenses such as prior use, intervening rights, or prior invention) is also possible.

Patent infringement insurance

Patent infringement insurance is an insurance policy provided by one or more insurance companies to protect either an inventor or a third party from the risks of inadvertently infringing a patent.

In June 2006, a Study for the European Commission on the feasibility of possible insurance schemes against patent litigation risks was published. The report concluded that the continuation of the status quo with very little, disproportionately expensive, bespoke patent litigation insurance (PLI) would not meet any objectives for a feasible insurance scheme. Instead, only a mandatory scheme was considered to be viable in order to provide the economic and technical benefits to the EU and individual patentees which would arise from a widespread PLI scheme.

Legislation

Australia

In Australia, a patent infringement occurs when a person, who is not the patentee, exploits or authorises another person to exploit the patent in question.

'Exploit' in this context includes:

(i) Make, hire, sell or otherwise dispose of a patented product; or
(ii) Offer to make, sell, hire or otherwise dispose of a patented product; or
(iii) Use or import a patented product; or
(iv) Keep it for the purposes of doing (i), (ii) or (iii); or
(v) Use a patented method or process; or
(vi) Do any act mentioned from (i) to (iv) above in respect of a product resulting from the use of a patented method or process.

Canada

Main article: Patent infringement in Canadian law

In Canada, patents are governed by the Patent Act, and the rights of a patent holder are summarized at s. 42:

42. Every patent granted under this Act shall contain the title or name of the invention, with a reference to the specification, and shall, subject to this Act, grant to the patentee and the patentee's legal representatives for the term of the patent, from the granting of the patent, the exclusive right, privilege and liberty of making, constructing, using the invention and selling it to others to be used, subject to adjudication in respect thereof before any court of competent jurisdiction.

By granting the patent holder the exclusive right, privilege and liberty of making, constructing, using, and selling the invention, the Act establishes that any other person making, constructing, using, or selling the patented invention is infringing that patent. Whether there has been an infringement of a patent is usually a question of fact.

Canada is considered to be more friendly for rights holders in pursuing patent claims than in the United States, due to significant differences between the two jurisdictions:

Patents in Canada are subject to a purposive construction, which relies on reading both the claims and the specifications to determine the scope of a patent, and extrinsic evidence is not permitted, leading to the absence of prosecution history estoppel.
While US patent trials are heard by a jury, Canadian trials are heard by a judge only, and thus the claims of a Canadian patent are construed only once as part of the trial judge's decision on the merits of the case as a whole. In that regard, the Federal Court of Appeal has ruled that Markman hearings are not allowed under Canadian law.
In Canada, the applicant has no obligation to disclose material prior art, so patents cannot be invalidated on that basis.
The same absence of obligation also means that the Competition Act will not come into play, unlike what occurs with antitrust law in the US.
The Canadian discovery process is more streamlined than the US procedure, resulting in less cost and time in pursuing the lawsuit, and it also possesses an implied undertaking rule, barring use of information produced or disclosed in discovery from any purpose other than the present litigation (other than by leave of the court).
Canadian law allows a plaintiff to elect to claim either compensatory damages or an accounting of profits, which can either act as a deterrent on infringement or as an incentive to reach a settlement before trial.
The availability of costs in Canadian courts is a significant advantage to a plaintiff confident of success, but is also a deterrent to pursuing more speculative cases.
Treble damages are not awarded in Canadian courts, and punitive damages are less likely to be awarded.

Europe

Main articles: Enforcement of European patents and European patent law

In Europe, national courts are competent for adjudicating patent infringement of national patents, national parts of European patents and Eurasian patents when the infringement takes place on their territory. Jurisdiction is determined for the countries in the European Economic Area by the Brussels regime, which means that for those countries also the court of the residence of the infringer is competent.

For the 17 countries participating in the Unified Patent Court (UPC), that court is competent for European patents in the same way as the national courts are, unless they are opted out. The UPC is furthermore competent for hearing cases regarding infringement of unitary patents, alongside the EEA courts of non-UPC countries (eg Spain, Norway) if the defendant has his residence/place of business there.

India

The Indian Patents Act 1970 does not specifically define activities that constitute infringement of patents. However, the following acts are deemed to be infringements according to the Patent Act:

Mechanical equivalents;
Carrying essential features of the invention;
Immaterial variation in the invention; and
The colorable imitation of the invention.

Japan

Main article: Japanese patent law

Infringement under the patent law in Japan is defined by Article 68 and Article 101 of Patent Act (Act No. 121 of 1959). Article 68 sets out the following types of infringement:

Where the invention is a product, by making, using, assigning, etc., importing, exporting or offering for assignment, etc. of the product as a business.
Where the invention is a process, by using as a business.
Where the invention is a process to obtain a product, by making, using, assigning, etc., importing, exporting or offering for assignment, etc. of the product as a business.

Article 101 shows the following acts shall be deemed to constitute infringement of a patent right or an exclusive license:

(i) where a patent has been granted for an invention of a product, acts of producing, assigning, etc., importing or offering for assignment, etc. any product to be used exclusively for the producing of the said product as a business;
(ii) where a patent has been granted for an invention of a product, acts of producing, assigning, etc., importing or offering for assignment, etc. any product (excluding those widely distributed within Japan) to be used for the producing of the said product and indispensable for the resolution of the problem by the said invention as a business, knowing that the said invention is a patented invention and the said product is used for the working of the invention;
(iii) where a patent has been granted for an invention of a process, acts of producing, assigning, etc., importing or offering for assignment, etc. any product to be used exclusively for the use of the said process as a business; and
(iv) where a patent has been granted for an invention of a process, acts of producing, assigning, etc., importing or offering for assignment, etc. any product (excluding those widely distributed within Japan) to be used for the use of the said process and indispensable for the resolution of the problem by the said invention, knowing that the said invention is a patented invention and the said product is used for the working of the invention as a business.

United Kingdom

Main article: Patent infringement under United Kingdom law

Infringement under United Kingdom patent law is defined by Section 60 of the UK Patents Act 1977 (as amended), which sets out the following types of infringement:

Where the invention is a product, by the making, disposing of, offering to dispose of, using, importing or keeping a patented product.
Where the invention is a process, by the use, or offer for use where it is known that the use of the process would be an infringement. Also, by the disposal of, offer to dispose of, use or import of a product obtained directly by means of that process, or the keeping of any such product whether for disposal or otherwise.
By the supply, or offer to supply, in the United Kingdom, a person not entitled to work the invention, with any of the means, relating to an essential element of the invention, for putting the invention into effect, when it is known (or it is reasonable to expect such knowledge) that those means are suitable for putting, and are intended to put, the invention into effect in the United Kingdom.

United States

Main article: Patent infringement under United States law

In United States law, an infringement may occur where the defendant has made, used, sold, offered to sell, or imported an infringing invention or its equivalent. One also commits indirect infringement if he actively and knowingly induces another to infringe, and is liable for that infringement. Types of "indirect infringement" include "contributory infringement" and "induced infringement."

No infringement action may be started until the patent is issued. However, pre-grant protection is available under 35 U.S.C. § 154(d), which allows a patent owner to obtain reasonable royalty damages for certain infringing activities that occurred before patent's date of issuance. This right to obtain provisional damages requires a patent holder to show that (1) the infringing activities occurred after the publication of the patent application, (2) the patented claims are substantially identical to the claims in the published application, and (3) the infringer had "actual notice" of the published patent application.

Patent infringement cases are decided exclusively by Federal, rather than by State, courts. A court can impose one or more of the following remedies:

an injunction, i.e. an order to stop an infringing act. If an injunction order is not followed, the infringer can be criminally charged with contempt of court. Preliminary injunction can be imposed before trial in order to end the infringing activity immediately. However, since 2006 an injunction is available only under limited circumstances, as prescribed by the SCOTUS in eBay v. MercExchange. According to this ruling, in order to have a preliminary injunction issued by a judge, the plaintiff must show

that it has suffered irreparable injury (note: "has suffered" not "will suffer"),
that remedies at law (e.g., monetary damages) are inadequate,
that a balancing of hardships favors a grant of injunction, and
that the public interest would "not be disserved" by the grant of a preliminary injunction.

The Court issued this decision in order to reduce the impact of patent lawsuits initiated by non-practicing entities, such as patent trolls or universities acting like patent trolls.

reasonable royalty remedy is available in most patent infringement cases. Since 1971, this remedy is controlled by Federal Circuit precedent in Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. United States Plywood Corp.

In the US there are safe harbor provisions to use a patented invention for the purposes of gathering data for a regulatory submission.

"Piracy"

Threat to bring a patent infringement action

"A threat to bring a patent infringement action is highly likely to influence the commercial conduct of the person threatened, which is why the law of some countries, including the UK, provides that the making of a groundless threat to sue is, within certain carefully prescribed limits, an actionable wrong in itself." This however is not the case in the United States.

References

"Intellectual Property Enforcement - ip-enforcement - WIPO Liferay DXP". ip-enforcement. Retrieved 2024-06-18. Text was copied from this source, which is available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0) license.
Article 69 EPC
^ 35 U.S.C. § 271
Lemley, Mark A.; Shapiro, Carl (2005). "Probabilistic Patents". Journal of Economic Perspectives, Stanford Law and Economics Olin Working Paper No. 288. 19: 75. doi:10.2139/ssrn.567883. S2CID 9296557.
"Patents; Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc., No. 12-786 Indirect Patent Infringement". Archived from the original on 2015-02-25. Retrieved 2015-02-25.
"IP and Business: Launching a New Product: freedom to operate". www.wipo.int. Retrieved 2019-07-13.
UK Intellectual Property Office, Freedom-to-operate (FTO) patent search (infringement search). Consulted on October 9, 2009.
"FTO analysis: a king among patent searches" (PDF). Patent Information News (1/2016). European Patent Office: 12–13. 2016. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2019-05-24. Retrieved 2016-03-19.
"Patent Monitoring: Five Enticing Benefits of Automation". LexisNexis® IP. 2019-06-06. Retrieved 2021-03-21.
M. John Sterba Legal opinion letters: a comprehensive guide to opinion letter practice Aspen Publishers Online, 2002
AIPLA Report of the Economic Survey, 2007 Archived 2010-07-06 at the Wayback Machine
Patent Litigation Insurance
Patents Act 1990 (Cth) s 3(1).
Ibid sch 1.
"Patent Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. P-4)". s.42. 30 June 2021.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: location (link)
Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser, 2004 SCC 34 at par. 30, 1 SCR 902 (21 May 2004)
Andrew M. Shaughnessy; Andrew E. Bernstein (2005). "Patent Litigation: Choosing Between The United States and Canada" (PDF). The Metropolitan Corporate Counsel. 13 (2). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2012-08-16. Retrieved 2014-01-20.
Free World Trust v. Électro Santé Inc., 2000 SCC 66, 2 SCR 1024 (15 December 2000)
Realsearch Inc. v. Valon Kone Brunette Ltd., 2004 FCA 5, 2 FCR 514 (9 January 2004)
Flexi-Coil Ltd. v. Bourgault Industries Ltd., 1999 CanLII 7650, (1999) 86 CPR (3d) 221 (3 March 1999), Federal Court of Appeal (Canada)
Walker Process Equipment, Inc. v. Food Machinery & Chemical Corp., 382 U.S. 172 (1965)
Panda, Dr.Prativa. "Infringement of Patent Rights in India" (PDF). Indian Journal of Research.
Srivastava, Abhijeet Kumar. "Patent Infringement in India" (PDF). International Journal of Science and Research.
Patent Act in Japan
"or a court to find infringement, the plaintiff must show the presence of every element or its substantial equivalent in the accused device." Wolverine World Wide, Inc. v. Nike, Inc., 38 F.3d 1192, 1199 (Fed. Cir. 1994)
Kesan, Jay P. "Patent trolls." Research Handbook on the Economics of Intellectual Property Law (2019): 445-461.
Pradip K. Sahu and Shannon Mrksich. The Hatch-Waxman Act: When Is Research Exempt from Patent Infringement? ABA-IPL Newsletter 22(4) Summer 2004. "The Hatch-Waxman Act: When is Research Exempt from Patent Infringement?". Archived from the original on February 7, 2013. Retrieved 2013-06-08.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown (link)
"Samuel F. B. Morse, His Letters and Journals by Samuel F. B. Morse, Part 5 out of 9". fullbooks.com. Retrieved June 10, 2006.
"see Testimony by Harold C. Wegner, Professor of Law and Director, Intellectual Property Law Program, George Washington University National Law Center before the US Senate Wednesday, March 9, 1994". Archived from the original on February 26, 2005. Retrieved February 26, 2005.
Jeremy Phillips, From when must a threat be compensated?, IPKat, June 14, 2008. Consulted on June 15, 2008.

Misplaced Pages