The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in the recent nonprecedential opinion Bose v. SDI Technologies, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 4812 (Fed Cir. 2014), analyzed several different “points in time” to determine whether a defendant, charged with inducement and contributory patent infringement claims, had the requisite level of intent required to support these indirect infringement theories. In Bose, the Federal Circuit reversed a summary judgment holding of no liability based on the conclusion that SDI may have had the requisite level of intent for indirect infringement at “several points in time,” and therefore the summary judgment of no liability at those points in time was improper.
Patent infringement, as defined in 35 U.S.C. Section 271, can be broken down into direct infringement, under Section 271(a), and indirect infringement, under Sections 271(b) and (c). Direct infringement is rather simple and straightforward in that knowledge of the patent or a specific intent to infringe the patent is not required for the infringer to be liable for direct infringement. Indirect infringement is not as simple or straightforward.
This content has been archived.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]
