How to Effective Litigate a Case of Active Inducement H. Keeto Sabharwal and Melissa D. Pierre.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Secondary Liability Under U.S. Copyright Law Paula Pinha, Attorney-Advisor U.S. Copyright Office East Africa Regional Seminar on: Copyright Enforcement.
Advertisements

Chapter 4: Enforcing the Law 4 How Can Disputes Be Resolved Privately?
CARLIN LAW GROUP, APC (619) Know Your Indemnity Obligation Know Your Risk Know Your Insurance Company by KEVIN R. CARLIN, ESQ.
Seagate - Willfulness Prof Merges April 22, 2008.
Chapter 6 Defenses to Criminal Liability: Excuse Joel Samaha, 9th Ed.
© The McCoy Law Firm 2012 James McCoy The McCoy Law Firm Coit Rd., Ste. 560 Dallas, Texas (214)
© 2007 Morrison & Foerster LLP All Rights Reserved Attorney Advertising The Global Law Firm for Israeli Companies Dispute Resolution in the United States.
© 2015 McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved Law A body of regulations that govern society and that people are obligated to observe Sources.
Litigation and Alternatives for Settling Civil Disputes CHAPTER FIVE.
Chapter 18 Torts.
Legal Issues Final Review. Multiple Choice What is the situation in which a lawyer sues another lawyer for a serious error that caused a client to lose.
New Developments in E- Commerce: Legal Issues Professor Nancy King Oregon State University Aarhus School of Business.
Mr. Valanzano Business Law
A [Drunk] Wolfe at the Door (handling covered combined with uncovered claims) Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, LLP Peter J. Speaker, Esquire Joshua J. Bovender,
Maintaining Trademark Rights: Policing and Educational Efforts April 7, 2011.
John B. Pegram Fish & Richardson P.C. New York “Divided” or “Joint” Infringement.
Triton Construction Co, Inc. v. Eastern Shore Electrical Services, Inc. Eastern Shore Services, LLC, George Elliot, Teresa Elliot, Tom Kirk and Kirk’s.
Patents Copyright © Jeffrey Pittman. Pittman - Cyberlaw & E- Commerce 2 Legal Framework of Patents The U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 8:
Indirect Infringement II Prof Merges Patent Law –
Divided Infringement Patent Law News Flash!
Divided Infringement Patent Law Agenda Overview of infringement law Divided infringement cases – BMC v. Paymentech – Akamai v. Limelight.
Indirect and Foreign Infringement Prof Merges Patent Law –
Patent Infringement II Intro to IP – Prof Merges
1 1 AIPLA 1 1 American Intellectual Property Law Association THE STATUS OF INDUCEMENT AIPLA IP Practice in Japan Committee AIPLA Annual Meeting Raymond.
2015 AIPLA IP Practice in Europe Committee June, 2015 Phil Swain Foley Hoag LLP Boston, MA - USA Teva v. Sandoz and other recent decisions and implications.
Theresa Stadheim-Schwegman Lundberg & Woessner, PA Sharon Israel – Mayer Brown LLP June 2015 Lexmark v. Impression Products - patent exhaustion issues.
I NDIRECT AND D IRECT I NFRINGEMENT A FTER A KAMAI 9 th Annual Advanced Patent Litigation Course July 26, 2013 Presented by Casey L. Griffith.
Joshua Miller IEOR 190G Spring 2009 UC Berkeley College of Engineering 3/30/2009 DSU Medical Corp. v. JMS Co. December 13, 2006 Patent No. 5,112,311 (“the.
© 2004 West Legal Studies in Business A Division of Thomson Learning 1 Chapter 6 Strict Liability and Product Liability Chapter 6 Strict Liability and.
Agency AUTHORITY OF AGENTS (1) Where an agent acts in the name of a principal, the rules on direct representation apply. (2) Where an intermediary acts.
1 Patent Law in the Age of IoT The Landscape Has Shifted. Are You Prepared? 1 Jeffrey A. Miller, Esq.
Mr. Valanzano Business Law. Dispute Resolution Litigate – ________________________________________________ In some cases, people decided too quickly to.
DIVIDED/JOINT INFRINGEMENT AFTER FEDERAL CIRCUIT’S EN BANC DECISION IN AKAMAI/MCKESSON CASES AIPLA Mid-Winter Institute IP Practice in Japan Committee.
Unit 6 – Civil Law.
1 PATENT LAW Randy Canis CLASS 11 Infringement pt. 1.
4-1 Chapter 4— Litigation REED SHEDD PAGNATTARO MOREHEAD F I F T E E N T H E D I T I O N McGraw-Hill/Irwin Copyright © 2010 by The McGraw-Hill Companies,
Arlington Industies, Inc. v. Bridgeport Fittings, Inc.
1 Decision by the grand panel of the IP High Court (February 1, 2013) re calculation of damages based on infringer’s profits Yasufumi Shiroyama Japan Federation.
Mon. Nov. 26. Work Product “Privilege” A witness, X, who is friendly to the D was interviewed by P’s attorney and a statement was drawn up Is there any.
1 Inequitable Conduct in the Prosecution of Pharmaceutical and Biotechnology Patents Stephen D. Harper, Ph.D RatnerPrestia April 1, 2011.
Indirect Infringement Defenses & Counterclaims Class Notes: March 20, 2003 Law 677 | Patent Law | Spring 2003 Professor Wagner.
1 1 AIPLA Firm Logo American Intellectual Property Law Association The Presumption of Patent Validity in the U.S. Tom Engellenner AIPLA Presentation to.
COPYRIGHT LAW 2003 Professor Fischer CLASS of April THE LAST CLASS!!!
The Criminal Trial Process Section 11 (d) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms states that each person charged with an offence is to be ‘presumed innocent.
The Research Use Exception to Patent Infringement Earlier cases Whittemore v. Cutter 29 F. Cas (C.C.D. Mass. 1813) “It could never have been the.
Copyright © 2004 by Prentice-Hall. All rights reserved. PowerPoint Slides to Accompany BUSINESS LAW E-Commerce and Digital Law International Law and Ethics.
 Development of Strict Liability.  Defendant’s liability for strict liability is without regard to: Fault, Foreseeability, Standard of Care or Causation.
Chapter 09 Negligence and Strict Liability Copyright © 2012 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
Strict Liability and Product Liability Chapter 7.
Vandana Mamidanna.  Patent is a sovereign right to exclude others from:  making, using or selling the patented invention in the patented country. 
Jason Murata Axinn, Veltrop & Harkrider LLP Patent Infringement: Round Up of Recent Cases.
1 1 1 AIPLA Firm Logo American Intellectual Property Law Association THE STATUS OF INDUCEMENT Japan Intellectual Property Association Tokyo Joseph A. Calvaruso.
Civil Law An overview of Tort Law – the largest branch of civil law Highlight the differences between tort law and criminal law How torts developed historically.
HOT TOPICS IN PATENT LITIGATION ABA – IP Section, April 9, 2011 Committee 601 – Trial and Appellate Rules & Procedures Moderator: David Marcus Speakers:
TORTS: A CIVIL WRONG Chapter 18. TORTS: A CIVIL WRONG Under criminal law, wrongs committed are called crimes. Under civil law, wrongs committed are called.
GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW ©2010. All rights reserved. Ensuring Compliance with Patent Marking Requirements While Avoiding Civil.
THE JUDICIAL BRANCH COURTS, JUDGES, AND THE LAW. MAIN ROLE Conflict Resolution! With every law, comes potential conflict Role of judicial system is to.
Elements of a Crime Chapter 2.
Enhanced Damages for Patent Infringement: Halo v. Pulse
Chapter 7: Strict Liability and Product Liability
Chapter 13: Product Liability
CURRENT STATUS OF DIVIDED INFRINGEMENT AND INDUCEMENT
America Invents Act: Litigation Related Provisions
Legal Basics.
Cooper & Dunham LLP Established 1887
Chapter 9 Strict Liability and Product Liability.
WesternGeco v. ION: Extraterritoriality and Patents
The Role of Opinions of Counsel
Lesson 6-1 Civil Law (Tort Law).
Pitfalls and privilege in a post-halo World
Presentation transcript:

How to Effective Litigate a Case of Active Inducement H. Keeto Sabharwal and Melissa D. Pierre

2 35 U.S.C. § 271(b): “Whoever actively induces infringement of a patent shall be liable as an infringer" Allows patentee to sue entities that sell products used to practice a claimed method even though defendant does not directly infringe that claim – E.g., instruction manuals, brochures, website information, product labels Imposes the same level of liability on a person or entity who induces infringement as it does on direct infringers

3 Contributory versus Inducement Contributory Infringement: 35 U.S.C. section 271(c) – “Whoever offers to sell or sells within the United States...a component of a patented machine...constituting a material part of the invention...and not a staple article of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use...” – E.g., selling a formulation containing an infringing component covered by a U.S. Patent manufactured by another company

4 Contributory versus Inducement (cont’d) Inducement: 35 U.S.C. section 271(b) – E.g., method of use claim (“method of increasing lean body mass through the administration of an effective amount of chromium picolinate”) – E.g, method or process claim (“method of remotely powering an access device in a data network comprising [steps a, b, c, d, etc]... “)

5 Two Requirements for Finding Inducement 1.A showing that the conduct being induced is, in fact, a direct infringement ; and 2.Proof of intent

6 Direct Infringement If there is no direct infringement to which the Defendant contributed, liability cannot be extended Plaintiff bears the burden of showing direct infringement by a preponderance of the evidence Direct Infringement of a Third Party (e.g., consumer)

7 Direct Infringement (cont’d) How to Prove Direct Infringement: Direct Evidence – E.g., Testimony that consumer is taking product for patented use(s) (e.g., ingesting chromium picolinate to increase lean body mass) – E.g., Testimony that consumer is performing all the steps of a method claim – E.g., Survey evidence showing that consumers are ingesting product for patented use(s)

8 Direct Infringement (cont’d) – Note: Need at Least One Instance of Direct Infringement – E-Pass Technologies, Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 473 F.3d 1213 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (simply inferring that customers used a device in an infringing manner without showing at least one customer actually performed all the steps of the claimed method is not sufficient)

9 ACCO Brands, Inc. v. ABA Locks Manufacturer Co., Ltd. et. al., 501 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2007) Plaintiff was the owner of three patents directed to locking systems that inhibit the theft of equipment, e.g. personal computers The lock could be operated in two ways, one infringing (Dornfield method) and the other non-infringing (press-to-lock method) Plaintiff instructed its customers to use the non-infringing press-to- lock method – parties agreed to this District Court: Jury found Defendants ABA Lock and Belkin willfully induced infringement for the asserted claims of one of the patents; Belkin appealed

10 ACCO Brands, Inc. : Lack of Evidence of Direct Infringement ACCO’s expert was the sole witness who testified regarding use of the lock in an infringing manner No evidence provided that any customer ever used the lock in an infringing manner The record was devoid of other evidence that actual users had operated the lock in an infringing manner Although the arguably “most natural and intuitive” way of using the lock would infringe, there were other non-infringing ways of using the lock

11 Because it was shown that accused device could be used at any time in a non-infringing manner, it did not “necessarily infringe” the patent-in-suit Defendant ABA Lock included a set of instructions with its product that described the infringing method (ABA hang card) However, Defendant Belkin did not provide the ABA hang card to purchasers, or otherwise know of the use of the hang card or was involved in its preparation ACCO Brands, Inc. : Lack of Evidence of Direct Infringement

12 ACCO Brands, Inc. : Presence of Infringing and Non-Infringing Uses “[A]CCO must prove specific instances of direct infringement or that the accused device necessarily infringes the patent in suit, in order to sustain the jury verdict of induced infringement.”

13 ACCO Brands, Inc. : No Direct or Induced Infringement Court: “[H]ypothetical instances of direct infringement are insufficient to establish vicarious liability or indirect infringement.” Because ACCO’s failed to prove direct infringement, the Federal Circuit reversed the lower court’s ruling on direct and induced infringement, as well as the judgment with respect to willfulness, enhanced damages, and attorney fees

14 Intent - Overview Analogous to a criminal statute imposing liability for one who acts as an accessory before the fact Plaintiff need not prove that Defendant exercised control over third party infringer’s actions – only demonstrate that the Defendant knowingly aided and abetted another’s direct infringement Intent to induce may also be established by circumstantial evidence Plaintiff bears this burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence

15 The Varying Standards for Intent Hewlett-Packard v. Bausch & Lomb (Fed. Cir. 1990) : intent to induce requires a showing that the alleged infringer intended to cause the acts which led to the direct infringement of the patent Manville Sales v. Paramount Systems (Fed. Cir. 1990) : imposes liability where alleged infringer intended to cause the acts that led to the direct infringement and intent to infringe

16 The Hewlett-Packard Standard Federal Circuit: If the Plaintiff can prove that the Defendant “actually intended to cause the acts which constitute the infringement”, the Defendant is liable for inducement Defendant need only intend to encourage the conduct that ultimately turns out to be infringing Defendant could be found liable for inducement even if it believes that its acts do not constitute patent infringement and, therefore, does not intend for infringement to occur

17 The Manville Sales Standard Plaintiff must prove not only an intent to cause the acts that turn out to be infringing, but also an actual intent to infringe the patent “The plaintiff has the burden of showing that the alleged infringer’s actions induced infringing acts and that he knew or should have known his actions would induce actual infringements.”

18 The Federal Circuit Resolves the Conflict Stricter Manville Sales standard adopted DSU Medical Corp. v. JMS Co. et. al., 471 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2006) “[T]he intent requirement for inducement requires more than just intent to cause the acts that produce direct infringement…[I]nducement requires evidence of culpable conduct, directed to encouraging another’s infringement, not merely that the inducer had knowledge of the direct infringer’s activities.”

19 DSU Medical Corp. : Background Facts DSU’s invention reduced the risk of accidental needle-stick injuries The guards were intended to be closed around needles, to form the assembly; it was only when the ends of the guards were “closed” that assembly arguably met the claim limitations. Defendant ITL made “open” needle guards overseas and sold its products to Defendant JMS Co. for distribution in the United States. JMS closed the guards around the needle sets before importing and selling them to U.S. customers and thereby directly infringed DSU’s patents.

20 DSU Medical Corp. : The District Court Decision Evidence at trial established that ITL knew of the patent and intended that JMS form the assembly by closing the guards, but ITL also presented evidence to show that it did not intend to infringe. After a six-week jury trial produced a unanimous verdict, the court entered a final judgment of infringement against JMS. ITL found not liable for inducing infringement.

21 DSU Medical Corp. v. JMS Co. et al., 471 F 3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2006) The jury instruction, which utilized the stricter Manville Sales standard, stated: “The plaintiff has the burden of showing that the alleged infringer’s actions induced infringing acts and he knew or should have known his actions would infringe actual infringements.”

22 DSU Medical Corp.: The Federal Circuit Finally Speaks Federal Circuit convened an en banc panel to resolve conflicting precedent over the intent element for proving inducement Upheld the district court’s jury instruction Standard: specific intent to induce actual infringement Specific intent requires a “showing that the alleged infringer’s actions induced infringing acts and that he knew or should have known his actions would induce actual infringements.”

23 DSU Medical Corp.: The Federal Circuit Finally Speaks Court relied on the Supreme Court’s recent copyright decision Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 125 S. Ct. 2764, 2779 (2005), where the high court stated that “[t]he inducement rule... premises liability on purposeful, culpable expression and conduct.” Federal Circuit held that the jury’s verdict that the defendant lacked sufficient intent to induce was supported by evidence relating to (1) opinions of non-infringement form its legal counsel and (2) testimony from a corporate official

24 DSU Medical Corp.: Opinion of Counsel Defense Specifically, the Court pointed to the following evidence that ITL did not intend to cause the infringement: – ITL had contacted an Australian attorney, who concluded that its product would not infringe – ITL obtained letters from U.S. patent counsel advising that its product would not infringe; and – One of the owners of ITL who had participated in the design of the product testified that ITL had no intent to infringe the patent

25 Implications of DSU Medical Corp. for Infringers A good faith belief based on an objectively reasonable opinion of counsel of no direct infringement can provide a defense to a charge of inducing infringement Holding implies that a defendant’s reasonable belief in the invalidity of a patent could shield against a finding of inducement even if there was no dispute that the induced acts fell within the literal scope of the claims

26 Implications of DSU Medical Corp. for Patentees Burden of proving inducement is substantially increased Competent Opinions of Counsel – important to negating allegations of intent to infringe prong Leads to a dilemma regarding opinions of counsel

27 Opinions of Counsel Relevant to 2 issues in patent infringement action with differing standards and governing precedent – Intent prong of inducement claim (standard: “preponderance of evidence”) ( DSU Medical) – Negate allegations of willfulness (standard: clear and convincing evidence that defendant was “objectively reckless”) ( In re Seagate, August 20, 2007)

28 Opinions of Counsel – In re Seagate [T]he civil law generally calls a person reckless who acts in the face of an unjustifiably high risk of harm that is either known or so obvious that it should be known. Reliance on advice of counsel does not require waiver of attorney-client privilege Abandoned “due care” standard (tantamount to negligence) “No affirmative obligation to obtain an opinion of counsel”

29 Opinions of Counsel - Obtain / Produce? A belief that the patent-in-suit is either not infringed or invalid can negate a cause of action of inducement and willful infringement Do you obtain opinion? Do you produce opinion? – Not required under In re Seagate to negate allegation of willfulness – Probably, in cases involving allegations of inducement

30 Concluding Thoughts... Inducement requires (1) an underlying direct infringement; (2) some action to encourage the direct infringement; and (3) specific intent to encourage the infringement Direct infringement requires either evidence of “specific instances of direct infringement” or proof that using accused device “necessarily infringes” the patent-in-suit (e.g., no non-infringing use)

31 Concluding Thoughts... Direct Infringement: Direct Evidence is Key – Surveys / customer testimony – 3 rd party Intent to Induce: Opinions of Counsel - Important – Coverage of potentially inducing acts – Address non-infringement and/or invalidity – Probably a good idea to obtain and produce as defense