Message: PACER Samsung
BILL , Even i am not an expert in patent law ,but as i reviewed many articles and
some case law, for a long time i came into the conclusion that e.DIGITAL has strong
case against SAMSUNG in area of INDIRECT INFRINGEMENT or CONTRIBUTORY INFRINGEMENT.
This is just my own personal view.
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has exclusive jurisdiction in all patent claims
against the United States government. Unlike normal infringers, who are liable whenever they
make, use, offer to sell, sell, or import into the United States a patented invention (35 U.S.C.
271). The United States government and its contractors are liable only when the patent is used or
manufactured in the United States (28 U.S.C. 1498).
The lessons learned in recent patent case decisions are clear. If a patent claims a process and you
wish to infringe, simply off-shore one or more of the steps. However, due to a special provision
added to patent statutes in 1988, this “trick” can not be used if the patented process is used to
produce a product. The special provision makes importing the product into the United States an
infringement.
With the ever-increasing international flavor of business comes an important question for United States patent holders and foreign manufacturers alike: Can a company be held liable for patent infringement in the United States for selling an infringing product abroad that is later imported into the United States? Making, selling, or using a U.S.-patented product or process in a foreign country does not infringe the United States patent. United States law cannot govern in other countries, and the patentee’s remedy is therefore dependent on the laws of the relevant foreign country. Nevertheless, when the patented product is brought into the United States, U.S. law has the authority to provide a remedy. However, foreign company could is liable for contributory infringement based on its foreign sale of a complete infringing product. Recognizing an action for contributory infringement against foreign sellers when buyers import the infringing products into the U.S. could apply to situations in which it would seem fair to impose liability given the seller’s knowledge of their buyer’s infringing importation.
There are several cases in regard to liability of imported infringement products
| August 07, 2009] |
Presstek Announces International Trade Commission Victory in Patent Infringement Case Against VIM Technologies
(Market Wire Via Acquire Media NewsEdge) GREENWICH, CT -- (MARKET WIRE) -- 08/07/09 -- Presstek, Inc. (NASDAQ: PRST), a leading manufacturer and marketer of digital offset printing business solutions, today announced that it has prevailed in a critical ruling by an Administrative Law Judge of the International Trade Commission ("ITC") in the Company's patent infringement case against Israeli-based VIM Technologies, Ltd. In an opinion made public on August 5, 2009, Judge E.
James Gildea ruled that Presstek's patents for its printing plate technology are valid and enforceable and that VIM has been infringing Presstek's legally protected rights by importing and selling VIM's illegally infringing plates in the United States. The Company said that it expects the ITC to confirm the judge's ruling within the next few months by banning the importation of VIM's illegal printing plates into the United States.
The Company said that the ruling found VIM in clear violation of the Presstek patents, and also found that VIM continued to manufacture and sell its infringing products despite knowing, as early as 2004, that the products might infringe Presstek's patent rights. Judge Gildea also found VIM's manufacturing partner, Hanita Coatings RCA, Ltd., liable for illegally inducing the infringement of Presstek's patents and determined that the other respondents to the ITC proceeding, including Spicer's Paper, Inc., Guaranteed Service and Supplies, Inc., Recognition Systems, Inc. and AteCe Canada should be banned from importing and selling the infringing VIM products in the United States.
Enforcing Intellectual Property at the U.S. International Trade Commission
The American Bar Association is hosting the above-titled teleconference and live audio webcast program on May 5, 2009.
The U.S. International Trade Commission is increasingly the forum of choice for litigation directed against importers and distributors of products that infringe U.S. patents, trademarks, copyrights, or that are otherwise somehow tainted by unfair methods of competition. These cases (so-called “Section 337 cases”) are so popular because:
- they are much faster and less expensive than comparable court cases (even in “rocket dockets”);
- they are tried to experienced Administrative Law Judges who handle these cases exclusively;
- an ITC Staff attorney is involved in every case to assure that private parties have access to assistance if they need it;
- injunctive relief is automatically granted if the complaining party wins;
- U.S. Customs and Border Protection automatically excludes any further importations of goods found to infringe — at no cost to and without further involvement by the complaining party;
- any company conducting legitimate activities in the U.S. that is the victim of unfair trade practices from abroad can bring a Section 337 case, regardless of it country of origin (Section 337 cases have been brought by companies based in virtually every industrialized country in the world);
- accused infringers cannot avoid the ITC’s in rem jurisdiction once their products have entered into the U.S.;
- and relief is automatically awarded against defaulters.
14 Recommendations
Loading...
Loading...
New Message
Please
login
to post a reply