Patent Bar Exam Patent Infringement 5

Question 1

Under the doctrine of equivalents, the 'function-way-result' test finds infringement when the accused element performs substantially the same function in substantially the same way to achieve substantially the same result. Which case established this test?

Accepted Answer

Graver Tank & Manufacturing Co. v. Linde Air Products Co.

Answer

Graver Tank (1950) established the function-way-result test as the principal formulation for the doctrine of equivalents.

Question 2

A patent covers a composition containing 'about 5% to about 10% compound X.' An accused product contains 4.8% compound X. The alleged infringer argues no literal infringement. The patentee responds by arguing 4.8% falls within 'about 5%.' Under claim construction principles, this dispute turns primarily on:

Accepted Answer

The ordinary meaning of 'about' as understood by a person of ordinary skill and supported by the intrinsic record

Answer

The term 'about' is construed according to its meaning to a POSITA as supported by intrinsic evidence, which determines the numerical tolerance around the stated value.

Question 3

Which of the following is a correct statement regarding design patent infringement under Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc.?

Accepted Answer

An accused design infringes if, in the eye of an ordinary observer familiar with the prior art, it is substantially the same as the patented design

Answer

Egyptian Goddess eliminated the 'point of novelty' test and held that design patent infringement is judged solely by the ordinary observer test: whether an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art, would find the designs substantially the same.

Question 4

A patentee sues for infringement of a process patent. The accused infringer manufactured the product in the United States using a different process. Under 35 U.S.C. § 295, when can a court impose a burden-shifting presumption against the accused infringer?

Accepted Answer

When the product made by the patented process is new and not obvious, and the patentee has made a reasonable effort to determine the process used by the accused infringer but cannot do so

Answer

Section 295 shifts the burden to the defendant to prove its process differs when the patented process produces a new product and the patentee shows a reasonable effort to determine the accused process was used.

Question 5

Under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), which of the following acts by a U.S. company does NOT constitute direct infringement of a U.S. patent?

Accepted Answer

Manufacturing all components of the patented device in the United States for export and combining them abroad

Answer

Section 271(a) covers making, using, selling, offering for sale within the U.S., or importing into the U.S.; assembly of components outside the U.S. is not direct infringement under 271(a) (though it may trigger § 271(f)).

Patent Bar Exam Practice Test

Patent Bar Exam Practice Test

Patent Bar Exam Patent Infringement 5