ameri resources


Need an office in metro Detroit, Alabama or Toronto? Office suites, meeting rooms, virtual offices, network access




free downloads
NORTH AMERICA: "Regional R&D: Foreign Automakers in North America" report

NORTH AMERICA: "Regional R&D: Foreign Automakers in North America" report. 4-page report by Oliver Wyman.

proceed to download
eJournals

back to index backAMERItalk March,  2017


Supreme Court Reins in International Supplier Liability under U.S. Patent Law

On February 22, 2017, the Supreme Court handed down a unanimous opinion in Life Technologies. Corp. v. Promega Corp. (Roberts, C.J., recused), holding that manufacturing and exporting a single component of a multi-component patent could not lead to infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(f)(1). Of interest, the Court did not define how close to ‘all’ of the components ‘a substantial portion’ must be.” Slip op, at 10. Nor did the court define exactly what a component” is, as the parties had agreed that the patented invention is comprised of exactly five components. Slip op, at 2 n. 2. Expect these issues to be hotly contested as potential multi-party infringement and extraterritorial reach remain areas of intense interest for plaintiffs.

The case arose when a United States entity supplied a single component of a five-component invention to a foreign entity which combined the remaining four components into an infringing kit. Since the single component was a staple of commerce and capable of substantial noninfringing use, the Court was asked to determine whether any single component, as long as it was capable of a substantial noninfringing use, could comprise all or a substantial portion of the components of a patented invention.” Unanimously, the Court held that the statutory requirement of all or a substantial portion of the components of a patented invention” required more than a single component.

Though § 271(f) generally relates to infringement liability for exporting all or a subset of components of a patented invention, its subsections track other portions of § 271 with critical differences. To wit,

•§ 271(f)(1) generally tracks § 271(b) which provides liability for actively inducing infringement, whereas

•§ 271(f)(2) generally tracks § 271(c) which provides liability for contributing to infringement.

The distinctions are dispositive in Life Technologies.

•§ 271(f)(1) requires an alleged infringer to provide all or a substantial portion of the components of a patented invention. . .” (emphasis added).

•§ 271(f)(2) requires an alleged infringer to provide 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. . .” (emphasis added).

In Life Technologies, the alleged infringer provided a single component, Taq polymerase, which was ultimately combined with four other components to create a five-component infringing kit. Slip op, at 2. If Taq polymerase was especially made or especially adapted for use in the invention” and not a staple of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use,” § 271(f)(1) would not be necessary for a finding of infringement. However, since Taq polymerase is a staple of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use,” the Supreme Court was forced to determine whether a single component, regardless of how qualitatively important to a multi-component patented invention, could be a substantial portion of the components.” § 271(f)(1). The Court unanimously held that the language of § 271(f)(1), especially as compared with § 271(f)(2), mandated a quantitative analysis, and, by definition, prohibited a single component from being a substantial portion.” Slip op, at 4.

Looking ahead, this decision will create two new areas for argument. First, plaintiffs will be encouraged to use § 271(f)(2) to avoid the new single component” exclusion under § 271(f)(1). This means additional pressure to classify exported components as especially made or especially adapted for use in the invention.” Second, the parties may now argue over the proper classification of components in multi-component inventions. Defendants may attempt to classify exports as single components” and similarly classify the patented invention as multi-component. Plaintiffs may attempt the inverse—fewer overall components; more exported components. Whether bringing suit or defending suit, Life Technologies, in a limited way, has clarified the landscape and has created new questions to consider.

Source: FOLEY - GAI






previous page

go top
search our site


Loading

AMERItalk

Other articles from the same issue (March,  2017).

Autos: US Sales Solid in February; Demand Drivers Firmly in Place
play read on

WardsAuto: VW Reveals New Product, Sales Strategies for U.S.
play read on

NAFTA unlikely to hurt Mexico car production, says Renault-Nissan CEO
play read on

The Top Six Takeaways from Auto-ISAC's and NHTSA’s Cybersecurity Best Practices
play read on

Automotive industry insights from the suppliers’ perspective
play read on

NAFTA 2.0: Keeping Calm and Driving on for Canadian Auto Industry
play read on

Ontario Promotes Auto Parts Competitiveness
play read on

How Manufacturers Can Get Faster, More Flexible, and Cheaper
play read on

Are You and Your Supply Chain Ready for Import Tariffs?
play read on

State of the American Workplace
play read on

Real Estate Solutions Needed for Tech-Driven Auto Industry
play read on

3 Ways a New Customs Agreement Makes it Easier to Meet Global Demand
play read on

Your Guide to Claiming the R&D Tax Credit
play read on

What CFOs Need to Know About Corporate Tax Planning
play read on

Employers Invest Heavily When Hiring Foreign Talent
play read on

Commentary: What now? U.S. trade without TPP
play read on

U.S. Will Reclaim Global Supply Chain, Trump Trade Aide Says
play read on

Supreme Court Reins in International Supplier Liability under U.S. Patent Law
play read on

International Location Report: Expectations for a Steady Canadian Economy in 2017
play read on

Will US Workers Have Right Skills for Jobs of the Future?
play read on

When America Was Most Innovative, and Why
play read on

ISM: Strong Demand For U.S. Manufactured Goods Continues
play read on

Closing the skills gap: Creating workforce-development programs that work for everyone
play read on

U.S. Pass-through Entities - Tax Reform Changes?
play read on

Canada’s Free Trade Agreements Strategy
play read on

Canadian Tax Adviser
play read on

Canadian economy to grow by 2 per cent in 2017, RBC forecasts
play read on

U.S. Cutting Tool 2017 Consumption up 8.7% in January
play read on

Manufacturing Technology Orders Dropped in January
play read on


Our Free eJournals
GlobalAutoExperts

To visit GlobalAutoExperts Directory, click here.


©2008 GlobalAutoIndustry.com | HCI Group, Ltd.
101 West Big Beaver Road, Suite 1400 | Troy, MI 48084 USA
USA Tel: +1.248.687.1060 | USA Fax: +1.248.927.0347
Fax UK: +44.(0)845.127.4765 | Fax Europe: +31.20.524.1659 | Fax Asia: +852.3015.8120