tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post804344546823146685..comments2024-03-28T16:45:51.051+00:00Comments on The IPKat: US Supreme Court in the Limelight, casts shadow over patent inducement liabilityVerónica Rodríguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-20829596526014227482014-06-03T17:16:07.851+01:002014-06-03T17:16:07.851+01:00The elephant in the room (and by far the most jarr...The elephant in the room (and by far the most jarring aspect of the Ginsburg opinion) is the "do as we say, not as we do" admonition not to contort the law.<br /><br />We shall see just how well the Supreme Court can follow their own advice with the upcoming <i>Alice</i> decision.<br /><br />As to contortions - the point by Bruce Lilling should not be lost. In the real world inventions (and innovation) is not so artificially constrained to such "single actor" conditions. And yet, "scriviners" will be forced to contort inventions into that perspective.<br /><br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-53915574516059809782014-06-03T17:11:21.046+01:002014-06-03T17:11:21.046+01:00Coherent - yes.
Business sense - well, most defin...Coherent - yes.<br /><br />Business sense - well, most definitely [sic] a mixed bag. If your business is getting around patents, then sure, more power to the infringers' rights groups.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-76217118285283650182014-06-03T14:16:57.524+01:002014-06-03T14:16:57.524+01:00So does that mean that in the US from now on one h...So does that mean that in the US from now on one has to amend to any step 'performed by the one or any other party' or so? It seems strange to shift a problem of the wording of the indirect infringement provision towards the claim wording, b/c then it would become a matter of claim construction and be subject to equivalence, wouldn't it? But if so I would not understand why performing a step by a third party typically should NOT be equivalent to doing it yourself. And there where the cat bites itself in the tail,isnt it?Bennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-21507142794418788782014-06-03T12:58:34.783+01:002014-06-03T12:58:34.783+01:00A necessary consequence, which is not mentioned in...A necessary consequence, which is not mentioned in the Blog, is that it affects the way practitioners write claims.<br /><br />It was always true, but now it is even more important, that you write claims in such a way that they cover only a single entity’s actions.<br /><br />You need to avoid claims that require actions of two separate entities for infringement. Based on this decision, such claims may end up being effectively unenforceable because there is no single entity that is “infringing” all the claim elements.Bruce Lillingnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-62840694663418136442014-06-03T10:20:55.567+01:002014-06-03T10:20:55.567+01:00I think there's an important principle here th...I think there's an important principle here that the applicant either chose not to go for a shorter method claim or was not able to get a shorter method claim (and so no direct infringement occurred). Allowing the Federal Circuit's decision to stand would have essentially led to the patentee being able to take advantage of a claim scope that is not reflected in any of the granted claims. The Federal Circuit has to learn that in order to do justice it cannot contort patent law, even though that temptation is always there.<br /><br />I must admit I'm gradually warming to Supreme Court patent decisions.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com