In the past two months, the U.S. Supreme Court decided two significant patent cases, one rejecting a good-faith belief in the invalidity of a patent as a defense to induced infringement, and the other reaffirming a longstanding but widely discredited rule against post-patent-expiration royalties. We also report on recent Second and Ninth Circuit decisions rejecting copyright claims by actors and directors in motion pictures, and on a Ninth Circuit case confirming the availability of fee-shifting provisions in license agreements even where the Copyright Act itself would not afford fee-shifting.
Patent: Good-Faith Belief
The direct acts of patent infringement include making, using, selling, offering for sale, or importing a patented invention. The Patent Act also provides for aiding-and-abetting liability known as induced infringement: “Whoever actively induces infringement of a patent shall be liable as an infringer.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
