Infringement is the unauthorized copying of patented subject matter. Infringement can be either direct or indirect (e.g., induced or contributory), and the issue becomes complicated when the patented subject matter relates to methods. To illustrate, consider the fictional J.P. Jones, PhD, who has developed a burgeoning business in the bioinformatics field by dividing the practice of patented methods amongst several actors. Dr. Jones encouraged medical practitioners to augment their diagnostic resources by utilizing his for-profit laboratory to perform specific DNA analyses. The diagnostic methods collectively being followed by the clinicians and the independent laboratory were patented by another company, but in dividing performance of the method steps among the clinicians and the lab, Dr. Jones was able to ignore the patent rights by exploiting what has often been perceived as a loophole in US patent law. Under these circumstances, the patented protocols were not directly infringed. Consequently, Dr. Jones could not be held liable for inducing patent infringement. However, a September 2012 Appellate Court decision has changed things for Dr. Jones and his contract research organization (CRO.
Tag: <span>patents</span>
Induced Patent Infringement Breaks Free from Direct Infringement: The Implications for Bioprocessing
A patent permits the patent holder to keep others out. That is, a patent holder can prevent others from making, using, selling, offering to sell, or importing an invention within the United States and its territories and possessions. In the United States, these exclusionary rights generally last for 20 years from the date on which the patent application was filed. What the patent holder can keep others out of is defined by the “claims” of the patent. Patent claims describe the boundaries of the patent, much like a real property deed outlines the borders of a parcel of land. However, having a patent does not guarantee that the patent holder is free to use the claimed invention…
From an intellectual property (IP) standpoint, probably the two biggest problems I encounter in my practice for early-to-middle stage technology companies are: (1) their failure to fully understand and keep abreast of the competitive intellectual property environment , and (2) their failure to institute procedures that will permit and encourage development of a strategic intellectual property portfolio. By “strategic,” I mean an intellectual property portfolio that focuses on both an offensive and defensive position — a portfolio that not only covers the product and all aspects of its manufacture, production, and applications (defensive portfolio development), but also provides significant blocking positions with respect to competitors’ efforts…
