Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Federal Circuit Clarifies Standard for Direct Patent Infringement Involving Multiple Parties
February 28, 2008
On Sept. 20, 2007, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in BMC Resources, Inc. v. Paymentech, L.P., Civ. No. 2006-1503 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 20, 2007) clarified the standard for direct infringement where multiple parties are involved in performing steps of a method claim, which was previously confused by a statement made in the opinion for On Demand Machine Corp. v. Ingram Industries, Inc., 442 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2006). The Federal Circuit confirmed that direct infringement requires a single party to perform all steps of an asserted method claim, and that direct infringement under a theory of joint or divided infringement requires a single party that does not perform all of the steps to direct or control the other party or parties in performing the missing steps of the asserted method claim. Accordingly, because Paymentech neither performed all of the steps of the asserted method claims, nor directed or controlled the other parties to perform the missing steps, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's determination that Paymentech did not directly infringe on BMC Resources' patents.
The '456 Patent Claims
In its suit against Paymentech, BMC Resources asserted U.S. Patent Nos. 5,718,298 (the '298 patent) and 5,870,456 (the '456 patent), both directed toward methods for processing debit transactions without a personal identification number (also referred to as PIN-less debit bill payment ('PDBP')). The patented invention provides an interface between a standard telephone and a debit card network. On this interface, a customer may perform real-time bill payment transactions with only the telephone keypad. The invention includes an interactive voice response unit ('IVR') that prompts the customer to enter an access code, account number, debit card number, and payment amount. The entered information is provided to a debit network and then to a bank or financial institution. Thus, the claimed inventions generally disclose methods for performing PDBP transactions featuring the actions of several participants, including an interface owner, a debit network, and a bank or financial institution.
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?