Infringement Flashcards
What are the criteria for direct infringement of a patent relating to an inventive product?
A person infringes a product claim in a patent if, while it is in force (check renewal fees!) they do any of the following in the UK without the proprietor’s consent: makes, offers to dispose, dispose, use, import or keep the product (MODUIK)
NB exporting is not an infringing act
NB “for” in a product claim is interpreted as “suitable for” therefore a claim for “Pyrex for increasing bounce” is construed as a claim for pyrex.
What are the criteria for direct infringement of a patent relating to an inventive process?
A person infringes a process claim in a patent if, while it is in force (check renewal fees!) they do any of the following in the UK without the proprietor’s consent:
- use it or offer it for use in the UK when it is known/would be obvious that it would infringe to do so (KNOWLEDGE REQUIRED)
- offer to dispose, dispose, use, import, or keep any product obtained directly by the process
When will a product be considered to be ‘obtained directly’ from a patented process?
Encompasses both (i) products made by the process and (ii) products to which the patented product has been applied.
For (ii), consider whether the process has altered the product in some way that it acquires a non-trivial new property which has some unique and testable property.
For both (i) and (ii), if any subsequent process outside the scope of the patent is applied that results in a further alteration, then the product won’t infringe - has the subsequent process materially affected the testable property of the product?
Is there a de minimis exclusion available for infringement?
On balance, it appears that there is currently no de minimis principle in the statute or case law.
However there has been one case (Monsanto v Merck) where a one part in a billion patented compound in a product was excused.
How is ‘disposal’ interpreted for infringement?
Disposal is more than simply selling and encompasses giving a product away in a promotion or as a sample.
However, merely listing or stocking a product (e.g. in a catalogue or on eBay) may be interpreted as an ‘invitation to treat’ rather than an offer of disposal, in this case:
- Advise client to make a purchase to prove infringement
- It may be possible to get an injunction to prevent sale
What is Exhaustion of Rights?
All of a patentee’s right are subject to exhaustion - once a product has been made available in the EEA with the proprietor’s consent.
International exhaustion does not apply e.g. sale in China doesn’t allow import into the EEA.
This is particularly relevant to import. Note that if there is only a UK right and someone makes the product in France, then importation will be infringement as the product was not made available in the EEA with the proprietor’s consent.
Who bares the burden of proof in infringement actions?
Usually the proprietor, but
S100(1) - if a patented process creates a new product, the production of the same product by an unathorised party is prima facie evidence of infringement of the process, unless it can be proved to the contrary (‘reversal of burden of proof’).
S100(2) - this burden of proof will not require the second party to reveal commercial secrets if unreasonable to do so
What are the criteria for indirect/secondary/contributory infringement?
A person infringes if they supply or offer to supply in the UK an unathorised party with any means relating to an essential element of the invention, if the person knows or is it obvious that those means are suitable for, and intended for, putting the invention into the effect in the UK.
NB double territoriality requirement for indirect infringement - exporting such a means will not infringe (but check protection in other country)
What is the exception to indirect infringement set out in s60(3)?
Indirect infringement will not apply if the means relating to an essential element of the invention is a staple commercial product, UNLESS it is used to induce (primary) infringement.
What is considered a ‘staple commercial product’ for the purposes of FD1?
Anything that has at least one other legitimate use will generally be considered a staple commercial product.
NB but watch out for statements that it is ‘very rarely used’ or similar
How was ‘unathorised party’ interpreted in Nestec v Dualit?
Purchasers of Nespresso machines were not considered to be ‘unathorised users’ so purchase by them of third party capsules (machine-consumable part) was not a secondary infringement by Dualit
NB in this case the capsules were not independently protected - check this.
What exceptions to infringement are set out in section 60(5)?
a) private, (immediately) non-commercial acts (e.g. private individuals)
b) experimental purposes relating to the subject-matter of the invention
c) a medicine prepared in a pharmacy in response to an individual’s prescription
(NB a)-c) do not excuse acts under s60(2) except for Crown use and supplying prior inventors/third party rights holders)
d) use for a ship temporarily in UK waters
e) use in an aircraft/vehical temporarily in UK territory/airspace/waters
f) certain exempt aircraft lawfully in the UK, and their parts or accessories
g) farm use: propagating the product of a harvest on own holding
h) farm use: breeding livestock
i) human or veterinary health trials for market authorisation
What sorts of experiments fall under the s60(5) exemption?
Scientific/technical goal = acceptable
Experiments can ultimately have a commercial purpose but excludes:
- ‘demonstration’ or ‘comparison’ for third parties (=advertising)
- experiments for the immediate purpose of generating revenue
- experiments to test the market
What vehicles fall under the Section 60(5) exemption?
Ships, aircraft, cars etc. must be registered outside of the UK to fall under the exemption.
NB vehicles not yet registered anywhere won’t fall within the exception.
What is the territorial scope of s60?
the UK, Isle of Man and territorial waters
NB the Channel Islands are dependent territories and not part of the UK.
What are the important considerations when deciding who is the importer?
Depends where transfer of title of ownership actually happened.
Generally a person paying the transport costs is more likely to be responsible at the point of entry into the UK.
Other parties involved may be joint tortfeasors.
Explain consent and implied licences
Owners of patented products have an implied licence to use they product as they wish and re-sell it.
Such consent can be indirect e.g. via a licensee
Implied consent can lead to estoppel e.g. undue delay in bringing actions or implying a lack of intent to enforce rights.
The defendent has the onus of proof in establishing consent.
When will repairing a product be considered making?
An owner of a patented product has an implied licence to repair their product.
When considering making v repair:
- Is the part being replaced that part that confers value/inventiveness?
- How big is the part being replaced?
- Is the part being replaced a staple product?
- What is the relative lifespan of that part relative to the rest of the product i.e. does it need replacing often?
If replacing a core element of the invention this may be considered making the product anew = infringement.
FD1 keywording: if act amounts to replacing the inventive concept then it is not repair.
How can someone request an opinion from the patent office, and what can they ask about?
A proprietor or anyone else may request an opinion (by filing FORM + FEE) on:
- whether a particular act is or would be an infringement of a patent (in FD1 advise potentially infringing client to get an opinion)
- whether a ptent falls foul of s1(1)(a) or (b)
- whether patent provides a sufficient disclosure
- whether patent application contains added subject-matter
- whether a claim in a granted patent has been broadened
- whether an SPC is invalid
When do prior use rights arise?
If a person in the UK, before the priority date of a patent application, in good faith did an act which would infringe the patent if it were in force or in good faith, made serious and effective preparations to do so may continue to do so but cannot licence others.
NB always consider if prior use could act as prior art i.e. was it secret?
To what extent can people with prior use rights allow others to do the otherwise infringing act?
s64(2) - if prior use was in the course of business they can:
- authorise partners in the business
- assign the right as part of the business or a part thereof
s64(3) - resulting products can be dealt in freely