A Divided En Banc Federal Circuit Changes the Law of Divided Infringement

For the last five years, the law with respect to liability for inducement of a method claim was relatively clear and fairly consistently applied.  (A rare treat in patent law!) When infringement of a method claim was based on inducement, there needed to be either one party performing all of the steps of the claimed method or, if more than one party was involved in performing the method, there needed to be a “mastermind” directing all of the parties to perform the various steps of the method.  Without a "mastermind" (later clarified as requiring a contractual or agency relationship) there was no direct infringement of the method and, therefore, no liability for inducement.  The Federal Circuit took two cases en banc to consider the propriety of this “single actor” requirement.  Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. LimelightNetworks, Inc.,  2009-1372 and McKessonTechnologies, Inc. v. Epic Systems Corp., 2010-1291.  In a deeply divided decision, including a per curiam opinion along with dissenting opinions by Newman and Linn (joined by Dyk, Prost and O’Malley), the Federal Circuit announced a dramatic change in the law, holding that “we reconsider and overrule the 2007 decision of this court in which we held that in order for a party to be liable for induced infringement, some other single entity must be liable for direct infringement.  BMC Resources, Inc. v. Paymentech, L.P., 498 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2007).  To be clear, we hold that all the steps of a claimed method must be performed in order to find induced infringement, but that it is not necessary to prove that all the steps were committed by a single entity.” 

The majority opinion sets out the elements of the inducement claim in the context of multiple actors as follows:  When the party accused of infringement does not itself perform any steps of the claimed method, such as in the McKesson case, “a party can be found liable for inducing infringement if it can be shown that (1) it knew of [the] patent, (2) it induced the performance of the steps of the method claimed in the patent, and (3) those steps were performed.”  Majority Opinion at 35. In the case where the party accused of inducement performs some steps and another party performed other steps, as in Akamai, the elements are slightly modified to “1) it knew of [the] patent, (2) it performed all but one of the steps of the method claimed in the patent, (3) it induced the [other party] to perform the final step of the claimed method, and (4) the [other party] in fact performed that step.”   Majority Opinion at 36.  From these two statements from the court, we can generalize a bit, and set out the current law of inducement for a method claim as a single set of elements: (1) the defendant knew of the patent; (2) it either performed certain steps of the method claimed in the patent itself and/or induced others to perform those steps; and (3) all steps of the method were performed.

Interestingly, and much to the chagrin of J. Newman, this holding only applies to inducement under 35 U.S.C § 271(b).  With respect to direct infringement, the majority punted, stating that “[b]ecause the reasoning of our decision today is not predicated on the doctrine of direct infringement, we have no occasion at this time to revisit any of those principles regarding the law of divided infringement as it applies to liability for direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. 271(a)."  Majority Opinion at 13.  As a result, the law remains that for direct infringement liability, a single party needs to perform all steps of a method.  Those parties that perform only some of the steps, but do not induce the performance of the remaining steps of a claimed method, can still invoke divided infringement as a viable defense to an allegation of infringement and likely face no liability.

J. Newman, in her dissent, harshly criticizes the majority, stating “[t]he majority’s theory is a spontaneous judicial creation.  And it is wrong.”  Newman dissent at 7.  J. Newman argues that precedent, legislative history and cannons of construction all indicate that under 271(a) direct infringement can be established when multiple actors perform the steps of the method and this act of direct infringement is the necessary predicate for finding liability for inducement. 

The Linn camp’s dissent is equally harsh on the majority, arguing that “[t]he majority opinion is rooted in its conception of what Congress ought to have done rather than what it did.”  Linn dissent at 3.  The Linn dissent argues that the single actor rule is properly founded in 271(a) and, like J. Newman, argues that precedent requires an act of direct infringement before there can be liability for inducement.   

As a result of this dramatic shift in the law, we can expect an increase in patent cases asserting inducement for method claims.  There are certainly patents out there with claims that were not asserted due to a divided infringement issue, but now are back in play. Companies that have previously evaluated patents and determined that they likely did not have exposure for infringement of method claims based on a divided infringement theory may need to revisit those patents and reevaluate those claims under this new law.

Given the import of this issue and the deep divide in the Federal Circuit, it would not be surprising to see this case go on the Supreme Court for final resolution.

Where In The World Is The “Offer to Sell”?

It Doesn’t Matter for Liability Under 35 U.S.C. 271(a)

In Transocean v. Maersk Contractors, 2009-1556 (Fed. Cir., Aug. 18, 2010) the Federal Circuit dealt squarely with the issue of an offer to sell made outside the U.S. for use of a product in the United States. The facts were largely undisputed. A contract was entered into in Norway by two U.S. companies for the use of an oil drilling ship within the U.S. waters in the Gulf of Mexico. The ship was made outside the U.S. pursuant to the contract. The ship was later modified to be non-infringing (pursuant to an earlier order entered in a different case), so use of the actual modified ship was found not to be an act of infringement. However, the contract contemplated the unmodified design and this design was therefore the subject of the “offer to sell.”


The Federal Circuit held that:
Opinion at 19.  Thus, it is now clear: It doesn’t matter where the offer is made, only where the future sale is contemplated. If that contemplated sale is directed to the U.S., liability for infringement under 35 U.S.C. 271(a) may attach for the offer. Of course, if there is only an offer and no actual infringing sale, damages may become a difficult question. That, however, is a question for another day.

In order for an offer to sell to constitute infringement, the offer must be to sell a patented invention within the United States. The focus should not be on the location of the offer, but rather the location of the future sale that would occur pursuant to the offer.

Although not an issue squarely presented in Transocean, the language of this opinion suggests that an “offer” that is made within the United States, but contemplates performance outside the United States would not be within the scope of 35 U.S.C. 271(a).  In reaching its holding, however, the Court noted the policy considerations that underlie it holding.  The Court stated that “[a company making an offer outside the U.S.] would generate interest in its product in the U.S. to the detriment of the U.S. patent owner, the type of harm that offer to sell within the U.S. liability is meant to remedy.”  Despite this policy guidance, it would seem that, at least in some cases, an offer made in the U.S. for a sale contemplated outside the U.S. could also have a negative impact on the U.S. patent owner, yet under a fair reading of Transocean may not be actionable.

A “Golden Hour” for Defendants Accused of Joint Infringement

After a 27 page discussion on inequitable conduct, Judge Dyk dedicated a mere two paragraphs affirming a district court grant of JMOL that rejected a jury finding of infringement of both method claims and system claims. Golden Hour Data v. emsCharts, 2009-1306 -1396 (Fed. Cir. August 9, 2010).  For both the method and system claims, the Federal Circuit majority agreed with the district court that “that the evidence of control or direction was insufficient for the jury to infer control or direction.” Opinion at 27.

The claims of Golden Hour’s patent (U.S. Patent No. 6,117,073) are directed to an “integrated data management system for tracking a patient incident.” Claim 1, a system claim, requires (1) a dispatch module and (2) a billing module. Claim 15, a method claim, required steps of (1) collecting flight information, (2) collecting patient information from a clinical encounter, and (3) integrating the patient information and flight information.



The first defendant, emsCharts, developed a client billing module. The second defendant, Softtech, provided a flight dispatch and information module. “The two companies formed a strategic partnership, enabled their two programs to work together, and collaborated to sell the two programs as a unit.” Opinion at 7-8. According to an emsCharts press release, the defendants’ “partnership allows emsCharts to combine their existing product line with Softtech’s CAD [Computer Aided Dispatch] technology, enabling them to deliver a complete pre-hospital data solution for Emergency Medical Services.” J. Newman dissent at 5. Although the press release uses the term “partnership” and the majority refers to it as a “strategic partnership,” the opinion does not further elaborate on any actual legal relationship between Softtech and emsCharts with regard to the integrated system.

With respect to sales of the integrated system, the majority stated that “[s]uch a sale might well create liability on the part of emsCharts for the sale of the patented system, whether or not emsCharts controlled Softtech. The problem is that by agreement, claims 1 and 6-8 were submitted to the jury only on a joint infringement theory. Such a verdict can only be sustained if there was control or direction of Softtech by emsCharts.” Opinion at 28. Despite acknowledging the “strategic partnership” between the parties, the majority held that the necessary “control or direction” was still lacking.

The majority first considered the process claims and relied on Muniauction, Inc. v. Thomson Corp., 532 F.3d 1318, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2008) and BMC Resources, Inc. v. Paymentech, L.P, 498 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2007), for the well established proposition that “control or direction” of one party by another is required for joint infringement of process claims. Without elaboration (or citation), however, the majority then extended this test to the system claims as well.

In her dissent, J. Newman suggests that “a collaborative effort as here, a “strategic partnership” to sell the infringing system as a unit, is not immune from infringement simply because the participating entities have a separate corporate status.” Dissent at 5. Judge Newman does not cite any precedent for this position, however.

Although only two paragraphs long (less than half the length of this post), Golden Hour is interesting for two reasons. First, it clearly applies the “controlling party” or “mastermind” standard for joint infringement to system claims as well as process claims. (This was suggested in BMC Resources, but not clearly part of the holding). Second, it is a case where two parties accused of joint infringement clearly worked closely together to integrate and sell the accused system and yet the resulting “strategic partnership” between the defendants was still not deemed close enough by the majority to support a jury verdict of joint infringement.