by Steve Driskill | Sep 16, 2016 | [sub] direct, Infringement
Functional limitations can be structural even when recited as a negative limitation. Here, for example, a plasticizer claimed as being “not removed from” an internal matrix prior to transplantation into a human was found to be directly infringed by a competing product...
by Steve Driskill | Dec 4, 2014 | [sub] direct, Infringement
A manufacturer can directly infringe an apparatus claim if its system or product is “reasonably capable” of satisfying the claim elements even though it may also be capable of non-infringing modes of operation. Here, for example, a Wi-Fi compliant device was found to...
by Steve Driskill | Nov 25, 2013 | [sub] direct, Infringement
While a highly fact specific inquiry here, in general, an element deployed for a specific purpose need not be directly used for that purpose. For example, a file format “for … display on a personal computer” covers various PC-compatible formats, even if further...
by Steve Driskill | Oct 3, 2013 | [sub] direct, Infringement
Unavoidable performance of a claim still constitutes infringement. As such, it may be generally prudent to avoid unnecessary “determining” steps, for example, that would require further underlying processing even though the end result is the same. Even if such...
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 | Aug 15, 2012 | [sub] direct, Infringement
The most obvious lesson here is the importance of apparatus claims over method claims. It is unclear why the patents at issue do not contain a single apparatus claim (I checked), but that would have seemingly overcome the whole direct vs. indirect infringement issue...
