SUPREMA, INC. v. ITC (Fed. Cir. 2015) (NP) – Failure to investigate similar patent discovered during review of another patent may show willful blindness

by Steve Driskill | Sep 14, 2015 | [sub] indirect, Infringement

Willful blindness for establishing induced infringement under § 271(b) may be shown by a deliberate failure to further investigate a patent discovered during review of another patent and having similarities in content, inventorship, and ownership. Here, for example,...

SUPREMA, INC. v. ITC (Fed. Cir. 2015) (P, En Banc) – Claims capturing later induced infringement may still be sufficient to support ITC exclusion order

by Steve Driskill | Aug 10, 2015 | [sub] indirect, Infringement

An exclusion order from the ITC based on a violation of 19 U.S.C. § 1337(a)(1)(B)(i) may be predicated on a theory of induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) where direct infringement does not occur until after importation of the articles the exclusion order...

COMMIL USA, LLC v. CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. (S. Ct. 2015) (P) – Even a good-faith belief of invalidity is not a defense to a claim of induced infringement

by Steve Driskill | May 26, 2015 | [sub] indirect, Infringement

Even a good-faith belief of invalidity is not a defense to a claim of induced infringement. Here, for example, a major supplier of wireless access points and controllers was found to be subject to liability for providing infringement-inducing products to consumers...

SUPREMA, INC./CROSS MATCH v. ITC (Fed. Cir. 2013) (P) – Claims capturing later induced infringement insufficient to support ITC exclusion order

by Steve Driskill | Dec 13, 2013 | [sub] indirect, Infringement

An exclusion order from the ITC based on a violation of 19 U.S.C. § 1337(a)(1)(B)(i) may not be predicated on a theory of induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) where direct infringement does not occur until after importation of the articles the exclusion order...

COMMIL USA, LLC v. CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. (Fed. Cir. 2013) (P) – Good-faith belief of invalidity to negate inducement

by Steve Driskill | Jun 25, 2013 | [sub] indirect, Infringement

A good-faith belief of invalidity is evidence that may negate the specific intent to encourage another’s infringement, which is required for induced infringement. Background / Facts: The patent here relates to providing faster and more reliable handoffs of mobile...

MIRROR WORLDS, LLC. v. APPLE INC. (Fed. Cir. 2012) (P) – Doctrine of equivalents & proving inducement

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...