| Summary: | 碩士 === 國立交通大學 === 科技法律研究所 === 102 === Divided infringement is a term used to describe a situation where multiple actors, working in concert, infringe a patent claim. This type of infringement usually happens in method patents, which involve multiple steps of a process.
By looking into decisions made by United States Supreme Court and Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, this article explores the nature and evolution of divided infringement. In Akamai, the Supreme Court has rejected the Federal Circuit’s expansion of the inducement infringement, holding instead that inducement must be premised on underlying direct infringement. However, the Court did not review the rule for divided direct infringement under § 271 (a).
This article therefore engages a critical analysis of the CAFC’s en banc decision in Akamai by first examining the historical development of divided infringement and relevant court rulings, and second scrutinizing the Federal Circuit's majority opinion and Supreme Court’s decision in Akamai. Finally, this article argues that we should return to ”direct or control” doctrine established in BMC and expand to embrace joint enterprises and collaborative scenarios. Besides, when drafting patent claims, patent applicants should have their core claims targeted toward a single practicing party. This technique could largely avoid divided infringement of method claims.
|
|---|
