ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Patent Law Blogs -> Patently Obvious

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

Patent Law

: Patently Obvious

Federal Circuit Jurisprudence: Moving Beyond Federal Circuit Patent Cases

By Dennis Crouch, Esq.

ADVERTISEMENTS

By Dennis Crouch

After the Federal Circuit's 2006 en banc decision in DSU Medical, charges of inducing patent infringement were thought to require that the accused infringer have actual knowledge of the asserted patent.  In its recent decision in SEB v. Montgomery Ward, the Federal Circuit rejected that conventional wisdom and instead held that "deliberate indifference" to the existence of a patent would be sufficient to support an inducement finding.  Thus, "a claim for inducement is viable even where the patentee has not produced direct evidence that the accused infringer actually knew of the patent-in-suit."

An interesting aspect of the recent SEB decision is the court's use of non-patent and non-Federal Circuit cases to aid its interpretation of the law.  Specifically, the decision relies on three cases that are decidedly non-patent: Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994); United States v. Carani, 492 F.3d 867, 873 (7th Cir. 2007); and Woodman v. WWOR-TV, Inc., 411 F.3d 69 (2d Cir. 2005).

Farmer v. Brennan involved the question of whether an incarcerated pre-operative transsexual who projects female characteristics could be held in a men-only prison. The Supreme Court there held that a prison official could be liable for "deliberate indifference" to inmate safety.  US v. Carani involved an appeal of a child pornography conviction and the Seventh Circuit ruled that the defendant's knowledge of the child-status of the pornography was satisfied by the defendant's deliberate avoidance of or indifference to the truth. Woodman v. WWOR-TV involved an age discrimination charge against FOX and noted that knowledge of a fact may be proven through evidence that the party "consciously avoided knowledge of what would otherwise have been obvious him."

Interestingly, the cases cited above are not found in the appellate briefs. Rather, the SEB court's concept of "deliberate indifference" was raised sua sponte by the Federal Circuit.

A Broader Jurisprudential Outlook: In the past, I have spoken with appellate attorneys who suggested that briefs to the Federal Circuit should almost exclusively cite to prior Federal Circuit patent cases.  I wonder if this decision is indicative of a shift in the court's jurisprudence.  In recent cases such as eBay, MedImmune, and Grokster, the Supreme Court pushed the Federal Circuit to consider non-patent jurisprudence when deciding patent cases.  In KSR, the Supreme Court also suggested that the Federal Circuit should not overly bind itself to doctrine.  These bits of Supreme Court guidance suggest a broader jurisprudential outlook.  Additionally, soon-to-be Chief Judge Rader has a penchant for drawing connections across doctrinal lines. It will be interesting see whether this case is a sign of a new era or perhaps simply an aberration.

   

  

Full post as published by Patently Obvious on February 11, 2010 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Related Law Articles

Lawsuits and Settlements

Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.0336 secs (new cache)