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 | Jun 2, 2014 | [sub] divided, Infringement
Inducement of infringement of a method claim under §271(b) requires that performance of all the claimed steps be attributed to a single person in a manner that would constitute direct infringement under §271(a). The doctrine of divided infringement via inducement as...
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...
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 | 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...
