Blog
Patent Exhaustion Inapplicable To Practice of Related But Separate Invention by Third Parties Interacting with Licensed Products
Authors
- Name
- Chris W. Dryer
- Person title
- Principal
Helferich Patent Licensing, LLC v. The New York Times Co., ___ F.3d ___ (Feb. 10, 2014) (TARANTO, Bryson, Chen) (N.D. Ill.: Darrah) (4 of 5 stars)
Federal Circuit reverses summary judgment of noninfringement based on patent exhaustion. The case involves seven patents containing claims to mobile device handsets and other claims to systems and methods for transmitting data to handsets. The patentee previously licensed its portfolio to handset manufacturers, but filed against content providers who transmitted data to the handsets. Exhaustion did not bar the suit, even though the patents necessarily involved use of the already licensed handsets.
The Court extensively surveyed patent exhaustion precedent, concluding that courts have found exhaustion "only when the patentee's assertion of infringement was, or depended on, an assertion that an authorized acquirer [of a product practicing the patent] was using the same invention by infringing the asserted claims." Slip op. at 20. In contrast, there was no allegation here that the handset users were themselves infringing; rather, the infringement charges were directed solely at third parties transmitting data to the handsets in a manner covered by the content claims. The Court also emphasized that the handset and content claims were separately patented, unlike in patent exhaustion precedents involving complementary products, where the fact that one of the products was not separately patented was critical to the application of exhaustion. Moreover, the defendants did not argue that the claims could be infringed only with a handset with the inventive features in the patentee's other patents.
Stressing the novelty of the defendants' argument, the Federal Circuit declined extent the exhaustion doctrine, emphasizing that (1) cases grounding exhaustion in the common law of property suggested that the doctrine only protected the activities of the handset owners; (2) Congressional silence on the subject of exhaustion supported hewing closely to established precedent; (3) expanding the exhaustion doctrine to cover related products or third-party use could have dramatic implications for patent policy in the areas of software, communications, and social networking; and (4) restriction requirements imposed by the PTO during prosecution supported the conclusion that the content claims and handset claims were directed to distinct inventions.
Authors: Chris W. Dryer, Michael C. Tyler
The opinions expressed are those of the authors on the date noted above and do not necessarily reflect the views of Fish & Richardson P.C., any other of its lawyers, its clients, or any of its or their respective affiliates. This post is for general information purposes only and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is formed.
More by same author(s)
Blog June 8, 2016
Jury May Infer Intent to Induce Infringement Where Alleged Belief in Noninfringement Is Based on Objectively Unreasonable Reading of Claims
Blog May 13, 2015
Standing To Assert False Marking Requires That Plaintiff At Least Attempted To Enter The Market
Blog April 28, 2015
The PTO's Refusal To Terminate Reexamination Proceedings In Light Of District Court Settlement Is Not Immediately Reviewable In Court
Blog March 12, 2015
Ambiguous Phrase in Claims Not Indefinite Where Intrinsic Evidence Resolves the Ambiguity
Blog March 4, 2015
Judge Essex Recommends General Exclusion Order for Counterfeit Loom Kits
Blog December 24, 2014
Rule 12(b)(6) Inappropriate for Resolving Fact-Intensive Trade Secret Claims
Blog December 24, 2014
To Add Claims to a Separate Invention on Reissue, the Specification Must Clearly and Unequivocally Disclose the Newly Claimed Invention as a Separate...
Blog December 3, 2014
ITC's Authority to Enforce Consent Orders Extends to Importations by Third Parties
Blog December 3, 2014
Infringement Suit Must Target United States Where Private Entity is Legally Required to Perform Quasi-Governmental Functions
Related thought leadership
Blog February 24, 2025
Biologics and Biosimilars Landscape 2024: IP, Policy, and Market Developments
Blog February 10, 2025
The Most Interesting Appellate Cases of 2024
Blog January 29, 2025
Texas Round-Up: December 2024
Blog January 22, 2025
Protecting and Enforcing Your Trade Secrets in a Global Economy
Blog January 21, 2025
How Standardization, SEPs, and Patent Pools Can Benefit the EV and Battery Industries
Blog January 15, 2025
The Not-So-Safe Harbor for Research Tools: Lessons From the District of Delaware
Blog January 8, 2025
Hatch-Waxman 201
Blog January 7, 2025
Protecting Innovation in an AI-Powered Age: Patents
Blog December 12, 2024
Cybersecurity Litigation Strategies: Jurisdiction
Blog December 11, 2024
Introduction to SEP & FRAND Issues