Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
35 U.S.C. § 271(b) creates a type of indirect infringement described as "active inducement of infringement," while 35 U.S.C. § 271(c) creates liability for those who have contributed to the infringement of a patent. Both types of indirect infringement can only occur when there has actually been a direct infringement of the patent. [5]
Patent infringement is an unauthorized act of - for example - making, using, offering for sale, selling, or importing for these purposes a patented product. Where the subject-matter of the patent is a process, infringement involves the act of using, offering for sale, selling or importing for these purposes at least the product obtained by the patented process. [1]
Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A., 563 U.S. 754 (2011), is a United States Supreme Court case. [1] The case considered whether a party, in order to "actively [induce] infringement of a patent" under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), [2] must know that the induced act constitutes patent infringement, or whether deliberate indifference to the existence of a patent can be considered a form of actual ...
This is the second subjective factor that has been identified as increasing the length and cost of patent infringement suits. To avoid an allegation of willful infringement, many inventors purposely ignore learning about new patents, which contravenes one of the central purposes of the patent system, the dissemination of scientific knowledge.
In 2007, Halo filed suit against Pulse in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada for patent infringement. At trial, a jury found that Pulse had infringed Halo's patents, that Pulse's infringement was willful, and that Pulse should pay Halo $1.5 million in reasonable royalty damages.
Schillinger v. United States: 155 U.S. 163: 1894: Patent infringement claim against the United States cannot be asserted. Black Diamond Coal Mining Company v. Excelsior Coal Company: 156 U.S. 611: 1895: Consolidated Electric Light Co v. McKeesport Light Co: 159 U.S. 465: 1895: Risdon Iron & Locomotive Works v. Medart: 158 U.S. 68: 1895: Boyden ...
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Director Kathi Vidal said on Tuesday that intellectual property rights (IPR) continue to be a main concern for U.S. businesses in China, and they face significant ...
The large size of the US economy, the strong pro-patentee legal regime and over 200 years of case law make US patents more valuable and more litigated than patents of any other country. The long history of patents and strong protection of patent holders contributes to abuse of the system by patent trolls , which are largely absent in other ...