Opinion ID: 745466
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Remaining Patents In Suit

Text: 50 The remaining nine patents allegedly cover various components of ink jet cartridges. ROT does not appear to dispute this. In its Statement of Undisputed Material Facts submitted to the district court, ROT admitted that [t]he claims of [the patents in suit] claim either structure of the elements of the cartridges or methods of making same. However, ROT contends that its modification does not affect these elements, and HP does not allege otherwise. Rather HP argues that the modified cartridges are new devices that infringe these patents as well. As previously discussed, this argument misses the mark. HP has not introduced any evidence to show that ROT's limited modification constitutes reconstruction of the patented cartridges. 51 With regard to the '295 patent, HP argues that ROT's activities infringe process claims directed to providing ink reservoirs with ink and filling ink reservoirs with ink. This argument is also unpersuasive. Unauthorized use of the cartridges covered by the apparatus claims would necessarily infringe the asserted process claims. As previously articulated, however, when a patentee sells a device without condition, it parts with the right to enforce any patent that the parties might reasonably have contemplated would interfere with the use of the purchased device. While HP may assert that it didn't intend that the cartridges be refilled, there was no agreement on that point. Moreover, a license was impliedly granted under the patent for the additional reason that it contained apparatus claims as well as process claims covering use of the cartridges. Accordingly, HP authorized the practice of any method claims in the '295 patent when it sold the cartridges unconditionally. Univis Lens Co., 316 U.S. at 249, 62 S.Ct. at 1093 (stating that upon familiar principles the authorized sale of an article which is capable of use only in practicing the patent is a relinquishment of the patent monopoly with respect to the article sold). Finally, HP has not met its burden of showing the existence of an issue of material fact with regard to the asserted method claims of the '295 patent.