equivalent to the therein chamber? Two questions: How do you - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Patents – Doctrine of Equivalents

✔ ✖ ✖

• Even if no literal infringement, can still

infringed under DOE

• Larami
• Super Soaker did not have chamber

“therein”

• Under DOE, is the external chamber

equivalent to the “therein” chamber?

• Two questions:
• How do you determine scope of DOE?
• Why have DOE?

Patents – Doctrine of Equivalents

✔ ✖ ✖

• Warner-Jenkinson v. Hilton Davis

Claim ¡ Warner-­‑Jenkinson ¡ “ultrafiltra(on ¡through ¡a ¡ membrane ¡having ¡a ¡nominal ¡pore ¡ diameter ¡of ¡5-­‑15 ¡Angstroms” ¡

¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡5-­‑15 ¡Ang. ¡ ¡ ¡

“under ¡a ¡hydrosta(c ¡pressure ¡of ¡ approximately ¡200 ¡to ¡400 ¡p.s.i.g.” ¡ 200 ¡to ¡500 ¡p.s.i.g. ¡ “at ¡a ¡pH ¡from ¡approximately ¡6.0 ¡ to ¡9.0” ¡ above ¡9.0 ¡pH ¡

• Is above 9.0 pH = to 6.0-9.0 pH?

Patents – Doctrine of Equivalents

✔ ✖ ✖

• “All-Elements Rule”
• Need equivalent for each element
• Present in Warner-Jenkinson
• Determine equivalency
• “Triple Identity” test
• substantially the same function
• substantially the same way
• achieve substantially same result
• “way” is usually the critical inquiry
• “Insubstantial Difference” test

Patents – Doctrine of Equivalents

✔ ✖ ✖

• Hughes Aircraft v. U.S.

Claim ¡ U.S. ¡Satellite ¡ “means ¡. ¡. ¡. ¡providing ¡an ¡ indica(on ¡to ¡a ¡loca(on ¡external ¡to ¡ said ¡body ¡. ¡. ¡. ¡” ¡ means ¡is ¡a ¡ computer ¡on ¡ satellite ¡ “means ¡. ¡. ¡. ¡receiving ¡from ¡said ¡ loca(on ¡control ¡signals ¡. ¡. ¡. ¡” ¡ NOT ¡receive ¡signals ¡ “synchronism” ¡ does ¡synchronism ¡

• all elements problem
• classic “after-arising” technologies ex.
• what about triple identity test?

DOE ¡

Patents – Doctrine of Equivalents

✖ ✖

• Why?

Literal ¡Claim ¡ ¡ Scope ¡

PRIOR ¡ART ¡

• Equity
• Make-up for imperfections of language
• Policy

Patents – Indirect Infringement

✔ ✖ ✖

• Two Types:
• 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) “Whoever actively

induces infringement of a patent shall be liable as an infringer.”

• Inducement of Infringement

Patents – Indirect Infringement

✔ ✖ ✖

• 35 U.S.C. § 271(c) “Whoever offers to sell or

sells . . . a component . . . or a material . . . for use in practicing a patented process, constituting a material part of the invention, knowing the same to be especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement

• f such patent, and not a staple article or

commodity of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use, shall be liable as a contributory infringer.”

• Contributory Infringement

Patents – Indirect Infringement

✔ ✖ ✖

• Must have a direct infringer
• One that is being induced or

contributed to

• Two typical situations:
• induce the infringement of a method

claim

• contribute to infringement of product

claim

Patents – Indirect Infringement

✔ ✖ ✖

• C.R. Bard v. ACS
• Method claim:
• insert catheter

into coronary artery

• openings in

catheter draw blood from artery

Patents – Indirect Infringement

✔ ✖ ✖

• C.R. Bard v. ACS
• ACS catheter sells catheters with
• penings placed by doctors:
• all in coronary artery
• all in aorta
• partially in coronary artery
• Two likely infringe (in coronary), one

does not

• claim interpretation question

Patents – Contrib. Infringement

✔ ✖ ✖

• C.R. Bard v. ACS
• Contributory Infringement
• Is ACS’s catheter a “staple article” or

“capable of substantial non-infringing uses”?

• What is the common use?
• 40-60% of uses less than 3 cm

from entrance of coronary artery

• openings range from 3mm to 6.3

cm from balloon on ACS device

Patents – Induced Infringement

✔ ✖ ✖

• C.R. Bard v. ACS
• Induced Infringement
• Is ACS “actively and knowingly

inducing” doctors to infringe

• What would be evidence of this?
• instructions to doctors
• location of the openings

Patents – Induced Infringement

✔ ✖ ✖

• S.Ct. in Global Tech. v. SEB (2010)
• Alleged indirect infringer must:
• know that the induced acts constitute

patent infringement

• deliberate indifference to a known

risk that a patent exists does not satisfy the knowledge required by § 271(b); willful blindness does however

Patents – Indirect Infringement

✔ ✖ ✖

• Why?
• Efficient enforcement
• If standards met, infringer is “profiting”

from direct infringement

• Worry about expanding exclusivity

beyond scope of patent claim