ip_legal_services
  For Patent or Trademark Inquiries:
Call: 1-866-387-5386, or
E-mail: ash@ipprocure.com
 
IP Legal Services
36 Greenleigh Drive, Sewell, NJ 08080
90 Great Oaks Blvd., San Jose CA 95119, Tel: 1-866-387-5386
 
 
IP Legal Services
www. ipprocure.com
E-mail:ash@ipprocure.com
Tel: 1-866-387-5386 
PATENT INFRINGEMENT
A granted patent does not absolve the patent owner of all responsibility with regard to his/her patent. There is always the likelihood of infringement of the granted patent by others and the risk of the granted patent infringing another’s product. In 2008, 2,605 patent infringement cases were filed in US courts (Amanda Bronstad, “The National Law Review”, January 19, 2009) underscoring the need to understand the patent infringement. Understanding what constitutes patent infringement is necessary for determining whether your patent infringes another product. This chapter explains the basic concepts of infringement of a patent and the remedies available in the event of patent infringement. The chapter also provides the reader with suitable defenses in a possible patent infringement claim.
  • What Is Patent Infringement?

    Patent infringement refers to the performance of an illegal act that relates to a patented product without the license or permission of the owner of the patent. If a person were to use, make, sell or offer to sell any patented product, he would be considered to have infringed the patent of such invention and is liable for damages.

    As patent rights are territorial in nature, infringement of a patent occurs only in the country where the patent has been granted. Therefore, if company XYZ owned product “X” for which they had been granted a U.S. patent and company ABC in Canada was producing and selling the product “X” in Canada, there would be no infringement of the U.S. patent. This is because company XYZ only has patent protection in the U.S. However, if company XYZ had obtained a patent for their product “X” in Canada as well as the U.S. and company ABC manufactured and sold product “X” in Canada, company ABC would be infringing company XYZ’s patent in Canada and will be liable for the same under the patent laws in Canada.

    U.S patent law includes a comprehensive definition of patent infringement.

  • Definition:

    35 U.S.C. § 271(a) provides:

    (a) Except as otherwise provided in this title, whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States, or imports into the United States any patented invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent.
    (b) Whoever actively induces infringement of a patent shall be liable as an infringer.
    (c) Whoever offers to sell or sells within the United States or imports into the United States a component of a patented machine, manufacture, combination, or composition, or a material or apparatus for use in practicing a patented process, constituting a material part of the invention, knowing the same to be especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of such patent, and not a staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use, shall be liable as a contributory infringer.
    (d) No patent owner otherwise entitled to relief for infringement or contributory infringement of a patent shall be denied relief or deemed guilty of misuse or illegal extension of the patent right by reason of his having done one or more of the following: 
    (1) derived revenue from acts which if performed by another without his consent would constitute contributory infringement of the patent; 
    (2) licensed or authorized another to perform acts which if performed without his consent would constitute contributory infringement of the patent;
    (3) sought to enforce his patent rights against infringement or contributory infringement;
    (4) refused to license or use any rights to the patent;
    or (5) conditioned the license of any rights to the patent or the sale of the patented product on the acquisition of a license to rights in another patent or purchase of a separate product, unless, in view of the circumstances, the patent owner has market power in the relevant market for the patent or patented product on which the license or sale is conditioned.
    (e) (1) It shall not be an act of infringement to make, use, offer to sell, or sell within the United States or import into the United States a patented invention (other than a new animal drug or veterinary biological product (as those terms are used in the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and the Act of March 4, 1913) which is primarily manufactured using recombinant DNA, recombinant RNA, hybridoma technology, or other processes involving site specific genetic manipulation techniques) solely for uses reasonably related to the development and submission of information under a Federal law which regulates the manufacture, use, or sale of drugs or veterinary biological products.
    (2) It shall be an act of infringement to submit -
    (A) an application under section 505(j) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act or described in section 505(b)(2) of such Act for a drug claimed in a patent or the use of which is claimed in a patent, or
    (B) an application under section 512 of such Act or under the Act of March 4, 1913 (21 U.S.C. 151 - 158) for a drug or veterinary biological product which is not primarily manufactured using recombinant DNA, recombinant RNA, hybridoma technology, or other processes involving site specific genetic manipulation techniques and which is claimed in a patent or the use of which is claimed in a patent, if the purpose of such submission is to obtain approval under such Act to engage in the commercial manufacture, use, or sale of a drug or veterinary biological product claimed in a patent or the use of which is claimed in a patent before the expiration of such patent.
    (3) In any action for patent infringement brought under this section, no injunctive or other relief may be granted which would prohibit the making, using, offering to sell, or selling within the United States or importing into the United States of a patented invention under paragraph (1).
    (4) For an act of infringement described in paragraph
    (2)- (A) the court shall order the effective date of any approval of the drug or veterinary biological product involved in the infringement to be a date which is not earlier than the date of the expiration of the patent which has been infringed,
    (B) injunctive relief may be granted against an infringer to prevent the commercial manufacture, use, offer to sell, or sale within the United States or importation into the United States of an approved drug or veterinary biological product, and
    (C) damages or other monetary relief may be awarded against an infringer only if there has been commercial manufacture, use, offer to sell, or sale within the United States or importation into the United States of an approved drug or veterinary biological product. The remedies prescribed by subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) are the only remedies which may be granted by a court for an act of infringement described in paragraph (2), except that a court may award attorney fees under section 285.
    5) Where a person has filed an application described in paragraph (2) that includes a certification under subsection (b)(2)(A)(iv) or (j)(2)(A)(vii)(IV) of section 505 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355), and neither the owner of the patent that is the subject of the certification nor the holder of the approved application under subsection (b) of such section for the drug that is claimed by the patent or a use of which is claimed by the patent brought an action for infringement of such patent before the expiration of 45 days after the date on which the notice given under subsection (b)(3) or (j)(2)(B) of such section was received, the courts of the United States shall, to the extent consistent with the Constitution, have subject matter jurisdiction in any action brought by such person under section 2201 of title 28 for a declaratory judgment that such patent is invalid or not infringed. 
    (f) (1) Whoever without authority supplies or causes to be supplied in or from the United States all or a substantial portion of the components of a patented invention, where such components are uncombined in whole or in part, in such manner as to actively induce the combination of such components outside of the United States in a manner that would infringe the patent if such combination occurred within the United States, shall be liable as an infringer.
    (2) Whoever without authority supplies or causes to be supplied in or from the United States any component of a patented invention that is especially made or especially adapted for use in the invention and not a staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use, where such component is uncombined in whole or in part, knowing that such component is so made or adapted and intending that such component will be combined outside of the United States in a manner that would infringe the patent if such combination occurred within the United States, shall be liable as an infringer.
    (g) Whoever without authority imports into the United States or offers to sell, sells, or uses within the United States a product which is made by a process patented in the United States shall be liable as an infringer, if the importation, offer to sell, sale, or use of the product occurs during the term of such process patent. In an action for infringement of a process patent, no remedy may be granted for infringement on account of the noncommercial use or retail sale of a product unless there is no adequate remedy under this title for infringement on account of the importation or other use, offer to sell, or sale of that product. A product which is made by a patented process will, for purposes of this title, not be considered to be so made after -
    (1) it is materially changed by subsequent processes; or
    (2) it becomes a trivial and nonessential component of another product.
    (h) As used in this section, the term "whoever" includes any State, any instrumentality of a State, any officer or employee of a State or instrumentality of a State acting in his official capacity. Any State, and any such instrumentality, officer, or employee, shall be subject to the provisions of this title in the same manner and to the same extent as any nongovernmental entity.
    (i) As used in this section, an "offer for sale" or an "offer to sell" by a person other than the patentee or any assignee of the patentee, is that in which the sale will occur before the expiration of the term of the patent.

  • Kinds of Patent Infringement

    There are several ways by which a patent may be infringed.

    Direct and Literal Infringement

    Under U.S. patent law, if a person makes, uses, sells or offers to sell any patented product without the permission or authority of the patentee (patent owner), he would be directly infringing the patent. A direct infringer need not have been aware of the patented product at the time of infringement. The only proof required for direct infringement to be shown is that the infringer made, used, sold or offered to sell a patented product without prior permission regardless of whether he knew of the patent or not.

    Literal infringement refers to the situation when the claims in the patent read on the infringing product exactly. “To establish literal infringement, all of the elements of the claim, as correctly construed, must be present in the accused system.” TechSearch LLC v. Intel Corp. 286 F.3d 1360, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2001). This means that if the patent included a claim that reads on the infringing product, the product would be literally infringed. However, even if the product is not being literally infringed, it is possible that the third party may be still infringing the patent under the Doctrine of Equivalents.

  • Indirect Infringement – Inducement and Contributory

    Although a person may not have directly infringed a patent, he may indirectly do so. Indirect infringement is of two types – inducement and contributory.

    35 USC § 271(b) provides, “Whoever actively induces infringement of a patent shall be liable as an infringer”. Infringement by inducement occurs when a person actively induces person(s) to infringe the patent of another. In order to constitute infringement, the inducer must have known of the existence of the patent and known or should have known that his actions would induce actual infringement. The Federal Court has held:, “Specific intent requires a showing that the alleged infringer’s actions induced infringing acts and that he know or should have known his actions would induce actual infringements” ACCO Brands, Inc. v. ABA Locks Manufacturer Co., 84 U.S.P.Q.2d 1267 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 12, 2007).

    Contributory infringement occurs if, person(s) “offers to sell or sells within the United States or imports into the United States a component of a patented machine, manufacture, combination, or composition, or a material or apparatus for use in practicing a patented process, constituting a material part of the invention, knowing the same to be especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of such patent, and not a staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use” 35 USC § 271(c). It must be noted that the sale mentioned in the above definition must be a “material component” of the patented product and not a staple article of commerce.

  • Doctrine of Equivalents

    According to the Act, a patent is literally infringed only when every element of the claims are present in the product. However, the courts have held that even if there is no literal infringement, the patented product may be infringed. However, even if an accused product or method does not literally infringe the claims of a patent, a claim may be infringed under the Doctrine of Equivalents if the accused product or method contains elements identical or equivalent to each claimed element of the patented invention. Warner-Jenkins Co. v. Hilton Davis Chem. Co., 520 U.S. 17 (1997). Under the Doctrine of Equivalents, an element is identical if it performs substantially the same function, in substantially the same way, to achieve substantially the same result. Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Product Co., 336 U.S. 271, 1949.

    A patentee has no standing to sue for infringement of the claims in the patent until after the patent issues. Patent protection takes effect or accrues when the patent is issued by the U.S. PTO. Thus, no patent protection exists during the patent application process.

  • Determination Of Patent Infringement

    35 U.S.C. 271 (MPEP 35, U.S.C. 271) states: “Whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States, or imports into the United States any patented invention during the term of the patent therefore, infringes the patent.”

    It is important to note that a patent cannot infringe another patent. As mentioned above, it is only the act of making, using, offering for sale, or selling a method or product pertaining to a granted patent, by another, that can infringe a claim of the granted patent. In other words, only a method or product can infringe a granted patent. Also, note that infringement of a claim by an accused method or product can be established only on a granted patent as patent protection is obtained only when the patent is issued or granted by the patent office. Therefore, a person cannot sue for infringement if a patent application is still under prosecution. Also, note that a person can sue for infringement only if a product is being made, used, offered for sale, or sold in a country in which the patent issues. Therefore, if a product is being made, used, offered for sale, or sold in a country other than the country where the patent pertaining to the product is issued, a person cannot sue for infringement.

    A claim in a granted patent may be infringed either literally or under the Doctrine Of Equivalents. In order to determine if an accused method or product literally infringes on a claim of a granted patent, you need to determine if every element of the claim is exactly found in the accused method or product. If every element of the claim is exactly found in the accused method or product, the claim is said to “read upon” the accused method or product. Therefore, the accused method or product literally infringes a claim of a granted patent when that claim “reads upon” the accused method or product. When a claim “reads upon” the accused method or product, the claim is considered to be “anticipated by” the accused method or product. In other words, the accused method or product “anticipates” the claim.

    If you find that an accused method or product does not literally infringe a claim of a granted patent, you need to then determine if the accused method or product infringes a claim under the Doctrine Of Equivalents. You can determine this by finding out if the elements of the accused method or product are identical or equivalent to the elements of the claim in the granted patent. Under the Doctrine Of Equivalents, an element of an accused method or product is identical to an element of a claim if it performs substantially the same function, in substantially the same way, to achieve substantially the same result.

    To infringe a patented product, each element in at least one of the independent claims of the granted patent must be identically disclosed or disclosed under the Doctrine Of Equivalents, in the accused product. To prove infringement, a patentee needs to show that at least one claim of the granted patent is infringed by an accused product.

    You need to keep the following things in mind in order to establish infringement.

    If an accused method or product has fewer elements that a claim of a granted patent, the accused method or product does not infringe the claim of the granted patent. The accused method or product infringes the claim of the granted patent, if the accused method or product (a) has the identical or equivalent elements or (b) in addition to the identical elements has more elements.

    Consider an example where an independent claim of the granted patent comprises the elements, for example, A, B, and C. Let us now consider the following test cases to determine if an accused product infringes the independent claim with elements A, B, and C.

    (a) If the accused product has the elements A, B, and C, the accused product infringes the independent claim of the granted patent as every element of the independent claim is found in the accused product.
    (b) If the accused product has the elements A, B, C, and D, the accused product infringes the independent claim of the granted patent as every element of the independent claim is found in the accused product. However, the accused product comprising elements A, B, C, and D is still patentable provided that the accused product meets the novelty and non-obviousness requirements described in chapter 2 of this book.
    (c) If the accused product has the elements A and B and does not have the element C, the accused product does not infringe the independent claim of the granted patent as every element of the independent claim is not found in the accused product.
    (d) If the accused product has the elements A, B and D, the accused product does not infringe the independent claim of the granted patent as every element of the independent claim is not found in the accused product.
    If an accused product infringes a granted patent, a patent can still be granted on the accused product. However, in order to use the granted patent, the patentee needs to obtain a license from the owner of the infringed patent.

  • Validity of Claims

    If every limitation (or element) recited in the claim is found in the prior art, alleged infringing device,/method,/composition of matter, or disclosure under consideration, the claim is said to “read upon” that prior art, device, or disclosure. If the claim reads upon a prior art publication or patent, the claim is anticipated by that prior art, and the claim is invalid or unpatentable. Although the claim in your invention “reads upon” a prior art reference, that is, although your claim is “anticipated by” the prior art reference, your invention may not necessarily infringe the prior art reference for the following reasons:
    1. The prior art reference may be a non-patent literature document or an article from a book which cannot be infringed.
    2. The prior art reference is a patent issued in another country.
    3. The prior art reference is an expired patent that cannot be infringed.

    If the prior art reference is a granted patent issued in the country that you wish to make, use, offer for sale, or sell the invention, your invention may or may not infringe the granted patent. Your invention will not infringe the granted patent if all the elements of the claim in the granted patent are not present in your invention. Your invention will infringe the granted patent only if all the elements of the claim in the granted patent are present in your invention. You need to conduct an infringement analysis to determine whether your invention recites all the elements of at least one of the independent claims of the granted patent.

    With regard to patentability, a patent office is not concerned with infringement when examining a patent application. The U.S. PTO’s guidance document titled General Information Concerning Patents states, in part: “The U.S. PTO Office has no jurisdiction over questions relating to infringement of patents. In examining applications for patent, no determination is made as to whether the invention sought to be patented infringes any prior patent. An improvement invention may be patentable, but it might infringe a prior unexpired patent for the invention improved upon, if there is one.”

    Therefore, if your invention is new and non-obvious, regardless of whether the method or product infringes a granted patent, you can obtain a patent. However, if you are considering making, using, offering for sale, or selling your invention, it is recommended that you determine whether your invention infringes any granted patents. You can determine this by conducting an infringement study as explained in the next section of this chapter.

    As explained in Chapter 3 of this book, the terms, “comprising” in a claim leaves a claim open to the elements recited in that claim plus any additional elements. The terms “having”, “consisting of” in a claim limits the claim to only the elements explicitly recited in the claim. In legal claim terminology, “having” and “consisting of” will be interpreted as “having only”. The open claim covers more elements excluding the elements recited in the claim while the closed claim covers only the elements recited in the claim. Therefore, when you construct a claim, it is preferable to keep the claim open by reciting, for example, “said apparatus comprising A, B, and C”. In this example, an apparatus with the three elements A, B, and C or an apparatus with four elements A, B, C, and D or more will all infringe on the claim that recites “said apparatus comprising A, B, and C”. On the other hand, if you constructed the claim as “said apparatus consisting of A, B, and C”, only an apparatus with the three elements A, B, and C will infringe the claim. In this example, an apparatus with four elements A, B, C, and D will not infringe the claim that recites “said apparatus consisting of A, B, and C” as it is limited to the elements A, B, and C.

    Consider the following example to determine if an accused device infringes an independent claim.

    A granted patent recites a claim, for example, “a device comprising elements A, B, and C”. Consider an accused device that has the elements A, B, C, and D. As discussed above, the accused device will infringe the claim that recites “a device comprising elements A, B, and C” as every element of the claim, namely, A, B, and C is found in the accused device. However, due to the presence of another element D in the accused device, the accused device may still be patentable provide that the element D in combination with the elements A, B, and C is new and unobvious. To avoid a reference that recites elements A, B, and C, the person applying for a patent for the accused device may amend the claim to read “a device consisting of A, B, C, and D”. This amended claim, although narrow, will avoid the reference.

    Conducting A Patent Infringement Study

    As explain earlier in section 7.3, a claim in a granted patent may be infringed either literally or under the Doctrine Of Equivalents. For a product to infringe a granted patent issued in that same country, each element in at least one of the independent claims of the granted patent must be found identically or must be equivalently disclosed under the Doctrine Of Equivalents in the accused product. To establish infringement, you need to prove that at least one claim of a granted patent is infringed by an accused product. You can do this by conducting an infringement analysis to determine whether an invention comprises all the elements of at least one of the independent claims of the granted patent. You may conduct an infringement analysis by preparing a claim comparison chart as follows:
    1. Create a table with two columns on a page.
    2. In the left hand column, copy verbatim the independent claim of the granted patent that is allegedly being infringed, such that the preamble and each element of the independent claim start on a separate row.
    3. In the right hand column, for the preamble and for each element of the independent claim in the left hand column, analyze the allegedly infringing product and determine whether the allegedly infringing product contains an element corresponding to the element in the left hand column. If so, enter the element of the allegedly infringing product in the same row in the right hand column corresponding to the element in the left hand column.
    Your product will infringe the granted patent only if every element of the claim listed in the left hand column is found identically in the corresponding product elements entered in the right hand column, i.e. if it they are found in the product exactly. Note that in order to establish infringement, if a dependent claim is infringed, the independent claim must also be infringed. However, if the independent claim is infringed, it is not necessary that the dependent claims are infringed.

    Infringement of Design Patents

    A design patent protects the ornamental feature of the product. A design patent will not protect any utilitarian element or structural features of the product. In the U.S. a design patent is granted for objects having practical utility. Therefore, in order to prove infringement of a design patent, it must be shown that the infringing product has the same shape and design of the patented product as observed by an ordinary observer.
    In the case of Egyptian Goddess Inc. v. Swisa Inc 498 F.3d 1354, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2007)..,the Court held: “that the “point of novelty” test should no longer be used in the analysis of a claim of design patent infringement.”……”Instead, in accordance with Gorham and subsequent decisions, we hold that the “ordinary observer” test should be the sole test for determining whether a design patent has been infringed.” In the case of Gorham Co. v. White, 81 U.S. 511, 14 Wall. 511 (1871)., it was held that if “in the eye of an ordinary observer, giving such attention as a purchaser usually gives, two designs are substantially the same, if the resemblance is such as to deceive such an observer, inducing him to purchase one supposing it to be the other, the first one patented is infringed by the other.”
    The above cases reiterates that the doctrine of equivalents is applicable also to design patents where the structure and design of the infringing product need not be identical but it is enough if it is substantially similar to the eye of the ordinary consumer.

    Infringement of Plant Patents Plant patents are granted in the U.S. for asexually reproducing a distinct or new variety of plant which does not include a tuber- propagated plant or an uncultivated plant according to the Plant Patent Act 1930. Infringement of plant patents occurs if person(s) other than the patent owner asexually reproduces, uses or sells the protected plant. Infringement occurs even if the infringer did not have knowledge of the protected plant. Note that infringement of a plant patent will not occur if the infringer sexually reproduces the plant i.e. grows the plant from seed. Also, the usage and sale of the fruit or flowers from a protected plant would not amount to infringement of the plant patent.

    Legal Remedies for Patent Infringement: There are several remedies available to the owner of the patent for infringement of his/her patent.

    Injunctive Relief: An injunction refers to an order from the Court to stop doing a certain act or thing. Injunctions can be temporary or permanent. One of the remedies available to a patent owner in an infringement case is to obtain an injunction against the infringers. The Court will direct the infringer(s) to stop production of the product and to have the infringing product removed from the market. In order to obtain this kind of relief, the patent owner will need to show the Court the possibility of a high level of injury which would be sustained by the continued manufacture, production and sale of the infringing product. In addition to the above, if the patent owner proves the validity of his patent and can demonstrate a high probability of winning his case, he may be also allowed preliminary injunctive relief, i.e., injunctive relief before the case is settled.

    Damages: A patent owner can claim reasonable royalty or lost profits which occurred as a result of the infringement. The owner will need to show the Court that if it were not for the infringement, he would have made a certain amount of profit. This amount can be recoverable from the infringer. If an infringer deliberately infringed the patent, the patent owner can also claim punitive damages upto three times of that of the actual damages.

    Attorney Fees and Court Costs: In case of willful infringement, the patent owner can recover court costs and attorney fees from the infringer.

    Defenses to Patent Infringement: In the event of a patent infringement case initiated against the manufacturer of a product, there are several important defenses that can be used to negate the alleged infringement. The following are acceptable defenses to be used in the event of a patent infringement situation.

  • Validity of the Patent

    One of the ways to show non-infringement is to prove the invalidity of the patent. This is important because if the patent itself was invalid, the product cannot infringe the patent. It is duty of the plaintiff, the patent owner in a patent infringement case to prove the validity of the patent and the validity of claims in order to obtain relief from the alleged infringement of the patent. In doing so, the plaintiff needs to prove that the patent is in force at the time of the infringement and that it was obtained by meeting all the conditions that were required to obtain a valid patent. The plaintiff also must show the Court that the every element of the claims in the patent is present in the allegedly infringing product in order to obtain a verdict of literal infringement. However, if the Court is of the view that the product is substantially the same as the patented product under the Doctrine of Equivalents, then the Court might find an infringement of the patent.

  • Statutory “Safe Harbor” Defense

    If the infringement case involved a medical procedure patent that was issued after 1996, a statutory “safe harbor” defense can be used in a patent infringement suit. A statutory safe harbor defense may be used by generic drug manufactures using the protected product for experimental use only. 
    35 U.S.C. §271(e)(1) states that “It shall not be an act of infringement to make, use, offer to sell, or sell within the United States or import into the United States a patented invention (other than a new animal drug or veterinary biological product (as those terms are used in the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and the Act of March 4, 1913) which is primarily manufactured using recombinant DNA, recombinant RNA, hybridoma technology, or other processes involving site specific genetic manipulation techniques) solely for uses reasonably related to the development and submission of information under a Federal law which regulates the manufacture, use, or sale of drugs or veterinary biological products.”
    The above provision is known as the safe harbor provision and can be used as a defense in a patent infringement suit.

    The applicant may then identify and recite technical features commonly found in each of the different species identified by the examiner. These common technical features may then be used to present an argument stating that the species are not independently usable.
  • Purely philosophical research

    Another useful defense in a case of patent infringement is if the patented product was used for scientific or experimental purposes and not for commercial use. In 2002, the case of Embrex, Inc. v. Service Engineering Corp. specified that the actions performed “for amusement, to satisfy idle curiosity, or strictly for philosophical inquiry” were exempted from patent infringement. Therefore, if it can be shown to the Court that the alleged infringement, i.e., usage of the protected product was for the purpose of experimenting and without any commercial interests, there would be no infringement held.

  • Patent Infringement by the Government

    It is possible that the Government or anyone acting for the government may infringe a privately owned patent. In such a case, the U.S. Government is required to pay compensation to the patent owner for the unauthorized use of the patent. The law has prescribed in 28 U.S.C. 1498 that the patent owner may recover damages from the Government in the U.S. Court for Federal Claims.

    The above mentioned provision provides that the patent owner can sue for “just and entire compensation” for infringement of the patent. It must be noted however that the Government cannot commit a tort for patent infringement unlike other infringers due to sovereign immunity. Therefore, damages or compensation is the only remedy available in a case of patent infringement.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
American Business Models American Patent Office American Trademark Services Automobile patent Benefits of Trademarks Registration Business Methods patents Chemical Patents Attorney Copyright Protection in US Copyright Registration in US Design Patent Application US Design Patent Registration E commerce patent law Electronics patent Lawyer Patent Registration in US What is a trademark? Patent Search Patent Registration in California Patent Lawyer New Jersey US Individual Patent Idea Protection Intellectual Property Law Firm US Intellectual Property Services Mechanical patent Attorney New Jersey Patent Lawyer Patent Application Filing Process Patent Attorney in California US Patent Attorney New Jersey Patent Drafting & Filing Patent Drafting Services New Jersey Patent Firm in US Patent Lawyer California Patent Services Trademark Lawyer California Provisional Patents Registered Trademarks Semiconductor patent attorney Software Patents & Trademarks Trademark Application Filing Process Trademark Attorneys in California US Trademark Consultant in New Jersey Trademark Filing in California Trademark Office US Trademark Lawyer New Jersey Trademark Registration in New Jersey Trademark Registry US Trademark Search in US Trademark Services in New Jersey U.S. Patent Search US Patent Office What Does A Patent Attorney Do? What Does A Patent Attorney Do? Who can apply for a patent
Website Design: Right Turn e design