Intellectual Property News & Information
Induced & Contributory Infringement
The USPTO publishes patent statistics in various formats. Within the section on the USPTO website addressing the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) is a list dating back to 1997 documenting the “Federal Circuit Decisions of Interest.” On this list, a simple search shows that inducement and contributory infringement cases are making the list more often in recent years. Since 1997, the USPTO FOIA page shows that prior to 2016 there were no ‘Federal Circuit Decisions of Interest” dealing with inducement and no contributory infringement cases prior to 2017. A search for all “Induced Infringement” cases on the list produced a total of 12 cases, 3 of which also dealt with contributory infringement. The list of cases and their summaries are found at this link: https://e-foia.uspto.gov/Foia/DispatchFCAServlet?RetrieveAll=true
FEDERAL CIRCUIT DECISIONS OF INTEREST - INDUCED & CONTRIBUTORY INFRINGEMENT (click on each case number to link to Court decision)
- Barry v. Medtronic 17-2463 Jan/2019 Induced Infringement
- Enplas Display v. SSC 16-2599 Nov/2018 Induced Infringement
- AIDS Healthcare v. Gilead 16-2475 May/2018 Induced Infringement
- Vanda v. WestWard 16-2707 Apr/2018 Eligible Induced Infringement
- Nalco v. Chem-Mod 17-1036 Feb/2018 Contributory & Induced Infringement
- Travel Sentry v. Tropp 16-2386 Dec/2017 Induced Infringement
- Sanofi v. Watson 16-2722 Nov/2017 Induced Infringement
- Lifetime v. Trim-Lok 17-1096 Sep/2017 Contributory & Induced Infringement
- Cleveland v. TrueHealth 16-1766 Jun/2017 Contributory & Induced Infringement
- Eli Lilly v. Teva 15-2067 Jan/2017 Induced Infringement
- Power Integr. v. Fairchild 15-1329 Dec/2016 Induced Infringement
- Warsaw Orthopedic v. NuVasive 13-1576 Jun/2016 Induced Infringement
The Supreme Court cases of interest on the same FOIA/USPTO site shows 3 induced infringement and no contributory infringement cases between 2009 – 2019 (data on the FOIA site for Supreme Court cases of interest begins in 2009). Although not stated in its summary, at least one other case also dealt with induced infringement – Live Technologies Corp. v. Promega Corp (Dock # 14-1538, 2/22/2017). The list of Supreme Court decisions of interest and summaries is found at this link: https://e-foia.uspto.gov/Foia/DispatchFCAServlet?SupremeCourtResults=true
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS OF INTEREST – INDUCED INFRINGEMENT
NOBEL LAUREATE IN CHEMISTRY - FRANCES ARNOLD
The 2018 Nobel laureate in chemistry, Frances Arnold, of the United States has inspired many as she helped move forward the science of biochemistry. In an interview for the USPTO she stated this about the creation and implementation of intellectual property:
“…your inventions, your creativity, your science, is not useful until someone uses it. How do you get people to use it? Well, it takes a lot of time, money and other resources on many people’s parts … that investment that it takes won’t come unless the reward can be visualized down the road.”
This sounds like important reasoning for strong intellectual property rights. The full USPTO interview with Frances Arnold is found at this link: https://www.uspto.gov/dwcstories/arnold.html
