by Steve Driskill | May 1, 2013 | Infringement
A device may be found to infringe if it is reasonably capable of infringement during its ordinary use, even if the infringing functions must be activated before satisfying the particular language of the claim. When “a user must activate the functions programmed into a...
by Steve Driskill | Mar 13, 2013 | [sub] direct, Infringement
Vicarious liability for direct infringement is generally limited to the scenario in which one party’s direction or control over another takes the form of a principal-agent or similar contractual relationship. “[A]bsent that agency relationship or joint enterprise, we...
by Steve Driskill | Mar 4, 2013 | [sub] divided, Infringement
This a reminder that the law on divided infringement has recently changed. There is no longer the requirement that a single-entity be liable for direct infringement for inducement to exist. “Rather, liability under § 271(b) may arise when the steps of a method claim...
by Steve Driskill | Nov 5, 2012 | [sub] divided, Infringement
In cases in which more than one entity performs the steps of a claimed method or process, a party is liable for direct infringement only if that party exercises “control or direction” over the performance of each step of the claim, including those that the party does...
by Steve Driskill | Sep 4, 2012 | [sub] doctrine of equivalents, [sub] indirect, Claim Interpretation, Infringement
Take care to avoid claiming unnecessary elements – the test for establishing infringement under the doctrine of equivalence cannot be satisfied by a theory that would entirely vitiate a particular claim element (the all-elements rule). Background / Facts: Despite a...
by Steve Driskill | Aug 31, 2012 | [sub] divided, Infringement
Method claims just got more valuable and harder to evade infringement liability. To prove induced infringement, it is no longer necessary that the claimed steps be performed by a single entity. (The single entity requirement still exists for direct infringement...
