Opinion ID: 3066230
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Lack of Ambiguity

Text: The majority’s presumed ambiguity in the combination of § 1337(a)(1)(B)(i) and § 271(b) seems to be merely a means to the end to which it arrives—resort to Chevron step 2. We should not read statutes to create an ambiguity in light of clear congressional statements, even if that result may lead to what some parties consider a normatively more fair result. See, e.g., United States v. Thompson/Center Arms Co., 504 U.S. 505, 524 (1992) (White, J., dissenting) (“To conclude otherwise is to resort to ‘ingenuity to create ambiguity’ that simply does not exist in this statute.” (quoting Rothschild v. United States, 179 U.S. 463, 465 (1900))); cf. Antonin Scalia & Bryan A. Garner, Reading Law § 27 (2012) (“Hence there can be no justification for needlessly rendering provisions in conflict if 482, 486–87 (1868). The majority instead appears to be arguing that § 1337(a)(1)(B)(i) is ambiguous in this particular situation because the application of § 271(b) to post-importation conduct does not provide for a clean analogue under § 1337(a)(1)(B)(i). Maj. Op. at 15 (“Simply put, the phrase ‘articles that infringe’ does not map onto the Patent Act’s definition of infringement.”). This purported inconsistency does not prove that Congress intended to leave the interpretative decision to the Commission, it merely demonstrates congressional intent not to include such conduct under the scope of § 1337(a)(1)(B)(i). FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp, 529 U.S. 120, 159 (2000). SUPREMA, INC. v. ITC 11 they can be interpreted harmoniously.”) (hereinafter Scalia & Garner). Section 1337(a)(1)(B)(i) speaks in terms of “articles that—infringe.” The majority says that this is not how we naturally refer to infringement under § 271—that we normally think in terms of a person or entity doing the infringing. The majority claims that this “disparity” requires that the Commission, and not our court, resolve the “uncertainty.” Maj. Op. at 15–16. This argument— newly asserted by the government in this en banc proceeding—lacks logical grounding. Although it is people who are liable for infringement under the law, it is the underlying article or methods that are the focus of an infringement analysis. It is to the aspects of articles that are manufactured, sold, or offered for sale or methods that are “used” that an element-by-element comparison with the patent claims is made. Multiple subsections of § 271 tie conduct directly to an article. For example, § 271(a) defines infringement as conduct involving the “mak[ing], us[ing], offer[ing] to sell, or sell[ing] any patented invention.” The “patented invention” of § 271(a) is the equivalent to the “article” in § 1337(a)(1)(B)(i). In the one situation where this analogy breaks down—method claims—the Commission has not said that the statute is inexorably ambiguous, it has instead concluded that § 1337(a)(1)(B)(i) does not apply to post-importation conduct that infringes method claims. Certain Electronic Devices, 2012 WL 3246515, at . And, § 271(c) ties contributory infringement to conduct involving “a component of a patented machine, manufacture, combination or composition.” Similar to § 271(a), this “component” is the equivalent to the “article” in § 1337(a)(1)(B)(i). Section 271(b) has no similar analogue. Induced infringement focuses on conduct tied to another infringer, not to an “article,” “patented invention,” or “component.” See 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) (“Whoever actively induces infringement of a patent shall be liable as an infringer.”). 12 SUPREMA, INC. v. ITC We have clarified that, in an induced infringement analysis, we focus on the conduct of the inducer and not the article itself. See DSU Med. Corp. v. JMS Co., 471 F.3d 1293, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (en banc) (“[I]nducement requires evidence of culpable conduct, directed to encouraging another's infringement, not merely that the inducer had knowledge of the direct infringer's activities.”); Warner–Lambert Co. v. Apotex Corp., 316 F.3d 1348, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“To succeed [on a theory of induced infringement], a plaintiff must prove that the defendants’ actions induced infringing acts and that they knew or should have known their actions would induce actual infringement.” (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted)). Any consideration of the “article” in an inducement analysis comes only as part of the requisite direct infringement under § 271(a). As discussed above, the Commission has already concluded that § 1337(a)(1)(B)(i) does not premise liability on post-importation conduct found to infringe a method claim. The fact that Congress spoke in terms of “articles” instead of “infringers” in § 1337(a)(1)(B)(i) is not evidence that Congress was confused or sought to implicitly delegate the decision of what an “article—that infringes” is to the Commission. King v. Burwell, 135 S. Ct. 2480, 2488– 89 (2015) (explaining that we should not nonchalantly defer to an agency’s interpretation for questions of “deep economic and political significance” (internal citation omitted)). It, instead, indicates Congress’s determination that Customs’s decision-making at the border should be tied to a tangible object—i.e., an “article”—not an intangible consideration—i.e., the importer’s intent. Although the Commission may be required to consider the importer’s intent in its analysis, it will only be as a corollary to a finding of direct infringement at the point of importation. Under § 1337(a)(1)(B)(i), intent cannot be divorced from the direct infringement. See Limelight, 134 S. Ct. at 2118 (explaining that separating § 271(b) from § 271(a) “would SUPREMA, INC. v. ITC 13 require the courts to develop two parallel bodies of infringement law: one for liability for direct infringement, and one for liability for inducement.”). The majority continues to “fundamentally misunderstand[] what it means to infringe a method patent.” Id. at 2117. The majority counters that an unambiguous construction of the statute “to require that infringement occur at the time of importation” would produce “absurd results under the pre-1994 version of § 271(a),” because, pre1994, § 271(a) did not define importing a patented invention as an infringing act. Maj. Op. at 18. The majority, however, ignores that § 1337(a)(1)(B)(i) explicitly considers the “sale within the United States after importation,” which means that Section 337 would “have reached even garden-variety direct infringement” that occurs through infringing sales within the United States. Maj. Op. at 18. Congress also amended § 271 in 1988 by adding § 271(g) to cover the importation of an article made by a patented process as an act of infringement. Omnibus Foreign Trade & Competitiveness Act of 1988, Pub. L. No. 100– 418, § 9003, 102 Stat. 1107. And, the domestic industry was not without recourse, as it could still seek to invoke § 1337(a)(1)(A) as it had done before the 1988 Amendments because, under the majority’s interpretation, those articles would not have been “articles that—infringe” under § 1337(a)(1)(B)(i). The 1994 Amendments to § 271, as part of the legislation necessary to effectuate the Uruguay Round Agreements, Uruguay Round Agree- ments Act, P.L. No. 103–465, 108 Stat 4809 (1994), demonstrate that Congress recognized the importance of clearly tying infringement to the point of importation, strengthening both the power of the district courts and the Commission explicitly. Even if the majority’s “absurd result” theory were true, moreover, we would still be required to give effect to the language Congress chose in 1988 to describe the Commission’s current power to control imports at the point of importation. See, e.g., 14 SUPREMA, INC. v. ITC Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 397 (1995) (“When Congress acts to amend a statute, we presume it intends its amendment to have real and substantial effect.”); Bausch & Lomb, Inc. v. United States, 148 F.3d 1363, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (“A change in the language of a statute is generally construed to import a change in meaning . . . .”). “It is . . . our task to determine the correct reading” of § 1337(a)(1)(B)(i) in light of § 271, and we cannot pass this task to the Executive Branch where Congress is unambiguous. Burwell, 135 S. Ct. at 2489. Congress provided the Commission with clear instructions: the Commission may bar the importation of any articles that could be found to be infringing under the Patent Act at the time of importation. See 19 U.S.C. § 1337(a)(1)(B)(i). Claims of induced infringement predicated on the potential completion of all steps of a method claim after importing the article do not meet this requirement under the plain language of the statute. There is no need to rely on the Commission’s interpretation in light of the clear statutory language in § 1337(a)(1)(B)(i).