Patent Infringement Flashcards

Under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), which of the following best describes 'inducement of infringement'?

Answer: Actively encouraging another party to directly infringe a patent with knowledge of the patent

Section 271(b) imposes liability on anyone who actively induces infringement by another, requiring knowledge of the patent and intent that infringement occur.

The doctrine of equivalents cannot be used to recapture claim scope that was surrendered during prosecution. This limitation is known as:

Answer: Prosecution history estoppel

Prosecution history estoppel bars a patentee from using the doctrine of equivalents to recapture subject matter surrendered during prosecution to obtain allowance.

Which test does a court apply to determine whether an accused device infringes a patent claim literally?

Answer: The all-elements (all-limitations) test

Literal infringement requires that every element (limitation) recited in the claim be present in the accused device exactly as claimed.

A company sells a component that has no substantial non-infringing use and knows the component will be combined by customers to infringe a patent. Under 35 U.S.C. § 271(c), this company is liable for:

Answer: Contributory infringement

Section 271(c) imposes contributory infringement liability on sellers of components especially made or adapted for use in an infringement with no substantial non-infringing use.

Under the 'reverse doctrine of equivalents,' a device that literally meets all claim limitations may nevertheless not infringe if:

Answer: The device performs the same function in a substantially different way

The reverse doctrine of equivalents permits a finding of non-infringement even for literal claim reads when the accused device achieves the result in a fundamentally different way.

In a method claim infringement analysis under Akamai Technologies v. Limelight Networks, direct infringement of a multi-step method claim by multiple parties requires:

Answer: One party to direct or control the other parties performing the remaining steps, or all parties act as a joint enterprise

After Akamai, direct infringement of a method claim by multiple actors requires that one party direct or control the others, or that the parties act as a joint enterprise, such that their combined performance is attributed to a single entity.

Which of the following acts is explicitly exempted from patent infringement liability under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(1) (the 'safe harbor')?

Answer: Research and development activities solely for uses reasonably related to FDA submissions

The Hatch-Waxman safe harbor exempts activities reasonably related to developing information for submission to the FDA, enabling generic drug makers to conduct pre-approval studies.