CAFC Rejects the Doctrine of “Marking Estoppel”
| March 27, 2013
Frolow v. Wilson Sporting Goods Co.
March 15, 2013
Panel: Newman, Clevenger and Moore. Opinion by Moore. Concurrences by Clevenger and Newman.
Summary:
The CAFC specifically rejected the doctrine of “marking estoppel” – which precludes a party that marks its product with a patent number from asserting that the product is not covered by the patent. However, the CAFC held that patent marking evidence is “circumstantial” evidence of infringement that could be used to establish infringement or to raise an issue of material fact preventing summary judgment of non-infringement.
Prior Art Reference Must Disclose Arrangement of Elements, Not Merely Each Discrete Element
| March 20, 2013
SynQor, Inc., v. Artesyn Technologies, Inc., et al.
March 13, 2013
Panel: Rader, Lourie and Daniel (Chief District Judge). Opinion by Rader.
Summary
SynQor sued Artesyn Technologies, Inc., and eight other power converter manufactures (Defendants) for infringement of five of SynQor’s U.S. Patents in the United States District Court (“DC”) for the Eastern District of Texas. The DC granted partial summary judgment of infringement of against the Defendants. The DC denied Defendants’ motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) or a new trial after the jury found all asserted claims infringed, not invalid, and awarded lost-profits of $95 million. On appeal, the CAFC affirmed the DC based on a review of the record evidence.
Tags: anticipation > claim construction > ThomasBrown
Problems That May Arise When Inventor Changes Employment: Obviousness-type Double Patenting
| March 13, 2013
In Re Jeffery Hubbell
March 7, 2013
Panel: Newman, O’Malley and Wallach. Opinion by O’Malley. Dissent by Newman.
Summary
Most patent practitioners would not be worried about an issued patent having a much later filing date than the application they are prosecuting. However, this case illustrates that such a patent can ultimately bar their application from issuing due to the doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting.
Tags: common assignees > common ownership > double patenting > inventorship > obviousness-type double patenting > terminal disclaimer
Direct infringement requires that party exercises “control or direction” over performance of each claimed step, but inducement does not have single-entity requirement
| March 11, 2013
Move, Inc. v. Real Estate Alliance Ltd.
March 4, 2013
Panel: Rader, Lourie and Moore. Opinion by Lourie
Summary:
REAL owns the ’989 patent, directed to methods for locating real estate properties using a zoom-enabled map on a computer. Move operates websites that allow users to search for available real estate properties. REAL alleged that the functions employed by Move’s websites infringed REAL’s claims. In the recent en banc decision of Akamai, CAFC decided an issue of divided infringement under § 271(b). On the issue of direct infringement under § 271(a), CAFC found that there is no genuine issue of material fact that Move does not control or direct the performance of each step of the claimed method. Therefore, Move is not liable for direct infringement. However, CAFC vacated the summary judgment regarding indirect infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). In en banc in Akamai, all the steps of a claimed method must be performed in order to find induced infringement, but that it is not necessary to prove that all the steps were committed by a single entity. Since the district court summarily concluded that because Move, as a single party, was not liable for direct infringement, it could not be liable for joint infringement. However, in Akamai, a single-entity requirement is not required in the inducement context.
Real社はコンピュータ上で拡大することが可能な地図を使用して、不動産物件の所在地を示す方法に関する特許を所有していた。一 方、Move社らは、ユーザーが不動産物件を探すことができるウェブサイトを運営していた。Real社は、Move社のウェブサイト機能がReal社の特 許を侵害すると主張した。
CAFCは特許法271条(b)項における共同侵害の成立要件に関して、昨年、Akamai判決（大法廷）を下し たが、本件では、Move社はクレーム方法の各ステップの実行を監督したり指示したりしていないので、特許法271条(a)項の直接侵害に関しては事実関 係についての実質的な争いはない。したがって、Move社の直接侵害はないと判断した地裁判決は正しい。
しかしながら、誘発侵害成立のため には、方法クレームの全てのステップが実行されることが条件ではあるが、全てのステップが単独で被告によって実行されていることは必ずしも要件ではないこ とをAkamai判決では判示した。ところが、本件の地裁判決は、Move社が単独で直接侵害がないがゆえに、共同侵害もないと判断している。 Akamai判決に従うならば、被告が単独で全てのステップを実施したかどうかは誘発侵害成立の要件にはならない。よって、特許法271条(b)項の間接 侵害に関する地裁のサマリージャッジメントを破棄し、誘発侵害の認定を地裁に差し戻した。
