Source: https://www.patentbaristas.com/archives/2006/02/02/demystifying-hr2795-the-patent-act-of-2005-part-4/
Timestamp: 2017-12-14 13:10:41
Document Index: 494536057

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 4', 'art 4', '§271', 'art 3', 'art 5', 'art 5']

Patent Baristas » Demystifying HR2795: The Patent Act of 2005 (Part 4)
Demystifying HR2795: The Patent Act of 2005 (Part 4)
[This is the fourth in a series of postings regarding the various proposals in the Patent Act of 2005.]
The phrase treble damages strikes terror into the heart of all non-patentees. It further promotes a balancing act between maintaining an ostrich mentality and risking that curiosity will kill the cat. An individual who is about to invest in a new technology must choose between allocating resources to determine what is out there or putting on their darkest sunglasses for fear that they may come across a patent that may potentially cover what they are doing. Note that courts/juries decide whether or not a patent actually covers a given technology. A well-drafted freedom-to-practice opinion from a licensed patent attorney may protect one from a willful infringement claim but it will not necessarily protect one from a finding of infringement even when there is a good argument to the contrary.
One area that is still being considered is whether a court or a jury will be responsible for the willfulness determination. The changes proposed here seek to make sure that the infringer willfully infringed rather than fictionally assuming that they infringed because they (or more likely their attorneys) may have glanced at the patent at some point. The proposal would codify that a court may find an infringer guilty of willful infringementif the patentee presents clear and convincing evidence meaning that the fact-finder must be persuaded by the evidence that it is highly probable that the claim or affirmative defense is true – that:
the infringer received written notice from the patentee either alleging specific acts of infringement AND the infringer, after a reasonableopportunity to investigate, infringes anyway;
Repeal of §271(f) for Software
Section 271(f) reads:
Oh boy, is this a complicated one! Here’s the deal. United States Patent law allows the patentee to exclude others from making, using, selling, and exporting the patented invention. But, once upon a time, some clever people figured out that they could export the pieces that make up the patented invention (or a major component thereof) without running afoul of the patent holders exclusion rights (since exporting components was not part of the exclusionary rights granted by the law). They would assemble the patented invention abroad, outside of the jurisdiction of U.S. law, and then sell it abroad.
There was some doubt as to whether this would apply to software but the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently held (Eolas Techs. v. Microsoft Corp., 399 F.3d 1325, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2005)) that these damages are not limited to physical machines. This proposal seeks to overturn that ruling by requiring that 35 U.S.C. 271(f) only apply to tangible items.
This is good for software developers who partially develop in the United States and then sell abroad. If the statute remains unchanged, it creates a potent argument for moving all development of software outside of the United States.
Previous: Part 3. Duty of Candor in Front of the USPTO.
Next Up: Part 5. Apportionment of Damages for Infringement.
« CAFC Hands Purdue Pharma a Reversal of Fortune in OxyContin Case | Demystifying HR2795: The Patent Act of 2005 (Part 5) »