Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

The Intellectual Property StrategistKickerFeaturesTopicsCommercial LawLitigationSectionsNewsLJN Newsletters

Federal Circuit Applies a Reasonableness Standard to the Knowledge of Infringement Prong

By Matthew Siegal and Mord M. Lewis
July 01, 2016

On vacatur and remand from the Supreme Court in light of Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 135 S. Ct. 1920 (2015), the Federal Circuit reaffirmed that defendant Medtronic Sofamor Danek USA, Inc. (MSD) induced infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,470,236 (“the '236 Patent”) to NuVasive, Inc., because its belief of non-infringement was unreasonable. The decision highlights the tension faced by alleged infringers, who must balance invalidity issues where a broad construction is desirable, against non-infringement issues, where narrow constructions are desired.

Proving induced infringement requires proof that the defendant knew the induced acts were infringing. See, Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc. v. NuVasive, Inc., Nos. 2013-1576, 2013-1577, slip op. at 4 (Fed. Cir. June 3, 2016) (internal citations omitted). MSD argued that it could not be an infringement inducer, because it believed its method was non-infringing. However, the Federal Circuit ruled that this belief was “objectively unreasonable,” in part because it conflicted with MSD's Markman position. In his concurrence, Judge Renya expressed his concern regarding how a jury is supposed to assess the reasonableness of a claim interpretation position if it is excluded from the entire Markman proceeding.

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year Later Image

The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.

Use of Deferred Prosecution Agreements In White Collar Investigations Image

This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.

The DOJ's New Parameters for Evaluating Corporate Compliance Programs Image

The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.

CLE Shouldn't Be the Only Mandatory Training for Attorneys Image

Each stage of an attorney's career offers opportunities for a curriculum that addresses both the individual's and the firm's need to drive success.

Discovery of Claim Construction and Infringement Analysis May be Compelled Prior to a Markman Hearing Image

A defendant in a patent infringement suit may, during discovery and prior to a <i>Markman</i> hearing, compel the plaintiff to produce claim charts, claim constructions, and element-by-element infringement analyses.