Also known as: patent infringements · infringing a patent · infringed patent · patent violation
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
An act that interferes with one of the exclusive rights of a patent owner. The interference occurs when another party makes, uses, offers for sale, sells, or imports the patented invention without authority.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Phoenix Technologies obtained a judgment finding that Platinum Partners had infringed its patent on a data compression method. The district court deferred the accounting of damages to a later proceeding. Platinum Partners filed a notice of appeal to the Federal Circuit. The appeal proceeded because the judgment resolved liability and left only the accounting unresolved.
Pulse Media proved at trial that Premier Manufacturing had infringed its business-method patent. The jury awarded damages. Pulse Media moved for a permanent injunction. The court applied the traditional four-factor equitable test and denied the injunction because monetary relief adequately compensated the patent holder.
Patricia Patel held a patent on a video-recording process. She sued Phoenix Technologies for selling a device that enabled users to copy protected recordings. The court examined whether the device had substantial noninfringing uses before deciding whether contributory infringement occurred.
Preston Pratt sued Paige Porter for infringing a patent on a measurement instrument. The parties disputed the meaning of a key term in the patent claims. The district court resolved the meaning of the term as a matter of law before the infringement trial proceeded.
Parker Phillips prevailed in an earlier suit establishing that a competitor's patent was invalid. Parker Phillips then sued Platinum Partners for infringement of the same patent. The court permitted Parker Phillips to preclude Platinum Partners from relitigating validity because the prior judgment satisfied the requirements for offensive issue preclusion.
Phuong Pham obtained a patent on isolated DNA sequences. Association for Molecular Pathology sued seeking a declaration of invalidity. The Supreme Court held that the claims were ineligible because they covered naturally occurring products rather than patent-eligible inventions.
A party may appeal immediately when the judgment resolves liability and is final except for an accounting. The statute expressly authorizes review by the Federal Circuit in that circumstance. The rule promotes efficient resolution of core infringement issues before lengthy damages proceedings.
Supporting sources
A court applies the traditional four-factor equitable test used for other civil cases. The patent holder must show irreparable injury, inadequacy of legal remedies, that the balance of hardships favors an injunction, and that the public interest supports relief. No special rule grants automatic injunctions in patent cases.
…shown that this case is distinguishable from earlier cases dealing with the distribution of political power by a State, that a patent violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution has been shown, and that an appropriate remedy may be formulated. I I take the law of the case from MacDougall v.…
…collateral estoppel. In Blonder-Tongue , this Court approved the defensive use of collateral estoppel by a patent licensee in a patent infringement
…it had previously done with other companies, but the parties failed to reach an agreement. MercExchange subsequently filed a patent infringement suit against eBay and Half.com in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. A jury found that MercExchange 's
…the patented item. See Dawson Chemical Co. v. Rohm & Haas Co. , 448 U. S. 176, 197-198 (1980). The doctrine of contributory
…only in response to state transgressions. See Florida Prepaid , 527 U. S., at 640 ("It is this conduct then—unremedied
Supporting sources
The court construes the claims as a matter of law. Claim construction is reserved exclusively for the judge even when expert testimony is offered on the meaning of technical terms. The construction then guides the jury's infringement determination.
Offensive collateral estoppel may apply if the prior judgment meets the requirements for issue preclusion. The patent holder must show that the defendant had a full and fair opportunity to litigate validity in the earlier action. Courts weigh fairness factors before permitting offensive use.
Supporting sources
The action may be brought where the defendant resides or where the defendant has committed acts of infringement and maintains a regular and established place of business. This statute provides the exclusive venue rule for patent cases.
Supporting sources