Patent Law Practice Center

A New Doctrine of Equivalents? CAFC Defines “Use” Under §271

Gene Quinn, of IPWatchdog and Practice Center Contributor, passed along this article on the recent Federal Circuit decision Centillion Data Systems, LLC v. Qwest Communications International, Inc..  In the article, Quinn discusses the opinion and questions whether it will “breathe new life into the doctrine of equivalents” given the Court’s determination of the meaning of “use” of a system as a matter of law under 35 U.S.C. 271 (a).

On January 20, 2011 the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in Centillion Data Systems, LLC v. Qwest Communications International, Inc., in which the district court was affirmed in part and reversed in part. Of particular note here is the determination of the meaning of “use” as that term is used in 35 U.S.C. 271(a). The Federal Circuit, per Judge Moore (with Judges Lourie and Linn joining) acknowledged that the Court has never directly addressed the issue of infringement for “use” of a system claim that includes elements in the possession of more than one actor, thereby making the specific issue a question of first impression. (more…)

Federal Circuit Reiterates Importance of Evidence of Direct Infringement

Brandon Baum, partner in Mayer Brown and Practice Center Contributor, passed along this analysis on the Federal Circuit decision Fujitsu Ltd. v. Netgear Inc.

The Federal Circuit has reiterated the importance of patent plaintiffs providing proof of direct infringement by end-users to establish indirect infringement by equipment suppliers.  In Fujitsu Ltd. v. Netgear Inc., the patents-in-suit allegedly covered an aspect of the wireless communication protocols promulgated by the IEEE and Wi-Fi Alliance for IEEE 802.11 networking (“802.11 Standard”).  Plaintiffs Fujitsu, LG Electronics and U.S. Philips Corporation each held patents “essential” to the 802.11 Standard, which they licensed through a patent pool.  Philips’ patent purported to cover the 802.11 Standard’s message “fragmentation” protocol. 

Plaintiffs sued Netgear, alleging that its 802.11 Standard-compliant products indirectly infringed the patents-in-suit.  Pertinent to this article, Philips accused 260 Netgear products of implementing the patented fragmentation protocol, and therefore contributing to and inducing direct infringement by end-users of those products.  (more…)