tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post9076044248074766420..comments2024-03-28T16:45:51.051+00:00Comments on The IPKat: US Supreme Court hears AT&T v MicrosoftVerónica RodrÃguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-81608474311216250372007-02-27T12:23:00.000+00:002007-02-27T12:23:00.000+00:00My rather sketchy memory of UK law on this relates...My rather sketchy memory of UK law on this relates to whether the article made is brought into the UK. So if X owns a patent in UK and Y manufactures the patented product outside the UK, X can only sue Y in the UK if the patented product is brought into the UK. If not... it'd be a long stretch for UK courts I would think.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02293360508954292301noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-4965248190127703342007-02-22T15:36:00.000+00:002007-02-22T15:36:00.000+00:00One suggestion is that software patents with so-ca...One suggestion is that software patents with so-called "program claims" could perhaps trigger this kind of action in Europe.<BR/><BR/>Consider if Company B, regardless of Company A's patent, creates software on a golden disk, which it sells in the UK to Company C. Company C then sells this software in the rest of the world.<BR/><BR/>Company B is presumably liable for the full consideration it has received from Company C.<BR/><BR/>But now suppose Company B and Company C are units of a larger structure, so the payment is only an internal transfer.<BR/><BR/>Can Company A still sue Company B, and get damages for the whole (worldwide) value of the Golden Disk ? Or does Company A have to sue the consolidated structure A+B ? And then can it get anything at all ?<BR/><BR/>- J. HealdAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-37878062271771899062007-02-21T12:55:00.000+00:002007-02-21T12:55:00.000+00:00It seems to me that this is not even about whether...It seems to me that this is not even about whether a patent would be infringed in other jurisdictions. Section 271(f) is not concerned with whether the patent is actually infringed abroad, but whether the combination <EM>would</EM> infringe if it were to be made in the US. There is no suggestion therefore of exerting extraterritorial jurisdiction as such. <BR/><BR/>If the Supreme Court rule in AT&T's favour, they will effectively be granting damages for (possibly imaginary) infringements outside the US, as there is no consideration as to whether the invention is even patented abroad.David Pearcehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02336561458060095886noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-25318336099369055862007-02-21T09:57:00.000+00:002007-02-21T09:57:00.000+00:00I'm thinking that there must be many situations in...I'm thinking that there must be many situations in which the same act turns out to infringe national patents both in the country in which that act is performed and elsewhere. Presumably, where this is so, damages will be available in each jurisdiction but only in respect of loss inflicted upon the patent monopoly <I>in that jurisdiction</I>. But this wouldn't work for some types of loss, such as diminution of value of a corporate subsidiary (see Court of Appeal in <I>Gerber v Lectra</I>, 1995). This looks like a promising topic for further serious research.Jeremyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01123244020588707776noreply@blogger.com