Blog Editors
Recent Posts
Analyzing Tech Regulation: Shapiro's Critique and Policy Recommendations
UPCOMING EVENT: Automated Decision-Making Technology and Artificial Intelligence
Free Speech and Trademark Law Clash in Vidal v. Elster
Using Technical Solutions to Address Issues in Privacy Law: A Talk by Professor Zubair Shafiq
An Introduction to Venture Capital
Archive
California AB 1844 and the Role of Social Media in the Employment Process
Mobile Patent Wars Heat Up as USPTO Invalidates Key Apple Patents
Star Wars v. Finding Nemo: Did Disney Overpay for Lucasfilm?
The Rise and Growth of Crowdfunding Websites
Zappos, Online Contracts, and the Perils of Browsewrap Agreements
A General History of Western Trade Secret Law from the Time of Preliterate Society to Today - Pt. 2
Apple and Google Consider Arbitration for Worldwide Patent Disputes
A General History of Western Trade Secret Law from the Time of Preliterate Society to Today - Pt. 1
Apple's Slide to Unlock Patent and the Issue of Patent Continuations
Funding Your Project Pt. 1: Kickstarter and Lockitron
Apple's Double Standard: Apple's Contentions with MySpace and Samsung Icons
Sprinting Towards Success? SoftBank’s Investment in the US Market
Google News Under Fire Around the World
Court Fines Man $1.5 Million for Uploading 10 Porn Flicks to BitTorrent
Proving Induced Infringement and Why the District Court Overturned a Jury's $600M Verdict Against Apple
Posted By Dominick Severance, Sep 17, 2012
Mirror Worlds sued Apple for direct and induced infringement of its method patent. The jury found Apple liable and awarded Mirror Worlds $600 million. The Federal District Court entered a judgment as a matter of law for Apple overturning the jury's verdict. The Federal Circuit affirmed on the basis that Mirror Worlds failed to provide evidence that Apple directly infringed the method patent or induced infringement in its users. In ruling that Mirror Worlds did not prove induced infringement, the Federal Circuit noted that Mirror Worlds could have, but failed to, prove induced infringement in two ways. First, Mirror Worlds could have provided evidence that Apple's user manuals contained actions that covered all of the claims in the method patent together. Regarding this option, the Federal Circuit held that since Apple's manuals contain the infringing actions in different sections and were thus not presented to the user together in the same section, Mirror World's mere production of the manuals was insufficient to prove induced infringement. Second, Mirror Worlds could have proved induced infringement by providing evidence that one of Apple's users performed the actions. The Federal Circuit held that Mirror Worlds did not produce any evidence showing that at least one Apple user performed all the actions in the method patent. Thus, since Mirror Worlds did not produce evidence that Apple directly infringed or induced infringement, Apple was not liable for infringement and the district court's judgement as a matter of law as correct. Source PDF (Federal Circuit): http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/11-1392.pdf