Ir al menú de navegación principal Ir al contenido principal Ir al pie de página del sitio
Iuris Dictio

Dossier

Núm. 19 (2017)

Obtener o no obtener una opinión de no infringir patentes. ¡Esa es la cuestión!

DOI
https://doi.org/10.18272/iu.v19i19.898
Enviado
junio 13, 2017
Publicado
2017-07-04

Resumen

Este trabajo pretende analizar el riesgo al adquirir una opinión de no infringir patentes. Después del caso Seagate, han aparecido muchas decisiones de los tribunales distritales o del Tribunal de Circuito Federal que han implicado infracciones intencionales. Este documento articula algunas observaciones de esas decisiones que dan una base para pensar en si se debería adquirir una opinión de no infringir patentes. El análisis está presentado para analizar a un infractor, sea potencial o ya acusado: la compañía T que podría ser acusada de violación directa o indirecta. Al analizar y discutir los casos federales de circuito o de juzgados de distrito después del caso Seagate, este texto sugiere que no hay ninguna obligación de obtener una opinión de no infringir patentes y que la mejor estrategia para un infractor, sea potencial o ya acusado, sería obtener tal carta de opinión.

viewed = 468 times

Citas

  1. Aly, I. T. (1999). Encouraging Unprofessionalism: The Magic Wand of the Patent Infringement Opinion. Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics, 12 (3), 593-622.
  2. Anderson, C. G. et al. (2008). Willful Patent Infringement: fte First Year of the Post-Seagate Era. Intellectual Property and Technology Law Journal, 20 (9), 11-31.
  3. Brandt, M. C. (2008). Compulsory Licenses in the Aftermath of eBay Inc. v. Mercexchange, L.L.C.: The Courts"™ Authority to Impose Prospective Compensatory Relief for Patent Infringement. Federal Circuit Bar Journal, 17 (5), 699-712.
  4. Chen, P (2016). Joinder of Unrelated Infringers as Defendants in Patent Litigation Under the Jurisprudence of the United States District Court for Eastern District of Texas - A Critical Review. Journal of the Patent and Trademark Office Society, 98 (2), 155-181.
  5. Countryman, C. E. (2016). 2015 Patent Decisions of the Federal Circuit. American University Law Review, 65 (4), 769-932.
  6. Harkins, C. A. (2007). A Budding fteory of Willful Patent Infringement: Orange Books, Colored Pills, and Greener Verdicts, Duke Law & Technology Review, 6, 1-39.
  7. Hull, M (2004). Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co.: A Fog Between the Bars. Akron Law Review, 37 (2), 343-344.
  8. Lafuze W. L. et al. (2007). Exculpatory Patent Opinions and Special Problems Regarding Waiver of Privilege. John Marshall Review of Intellectual Property Law, 6, 313-364.
  9. Prati, D (2008). Notes, In re Seagate Technology LLC: A Clean Slate for Willfulness. Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 23, 47-73.
  10. Seaman, C. B. (2012). Willful Patent Infringement and Enhanced Damages After in Re Seagate: An Empirical Study. Iowa Law Review, 97, 417-464.
  11. Sung, L. M. (1999). Echoes of Scientific Truth in the Halls of Justice: fte Standards of Review Applied by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Patent Related Matters. American University Law Review, 48, 1233-1318.
  12. Vickers, V. A. (2005), Willful Infringement: Enhanced Privilege and Obscure Remedies. Tulane Journal of Technology & Intellectual Property, 7, 337-345.
  13. Legislation:
  14. US Congress (2011). United States Code. Sections 271, 284, 287. Sept. 16, 2011.
  15. Sentences:
  16. US Bankruptcy Court, E. D. Wisconsin (2007). Muth Mirror Sys, LLC v. Gentex Corp. B.R. 805. December 5th, 2007.
  17. US District Court C. D. Illinois (2008). GSI Group, Inc. v. Sukup Mfg. Co., No. 05-3011. Oct. 9, 2008.
  18. US District Court D. Delaware (2008). Honeywell Int"™l Inc. v. Universal Avionics Sys. Corp. 585 F. Supp. 2d 636, 643-44. May 25, 2008.
  19. US District Court N. D. California (2007). Informatica Corp. v. Bus. Objects Data Integration, Inc. No. C 02-03378 EDL. May 16, 2007.
  20. US District Court E. D. Texas (2008). Astec America, Inc. v. Power-One, Inc. No. 6:07-cv-464. July 15, 2008.
  21. - (2008a). QPSX Devs. 5 PTY Ltd. v. Nortel Networks, Inc. No. 2:05-CV-268. 2008 March 18, 2008.
  22. US District Court D. Minnesota (2011). Spectralytics, Inc. v. Cordis Corp. 649 F.3d 1336. November 30, 2011.
  23. - (2008). Northbrook Digital Corp. v. Browster, Inc. No. 06-4206. Aug. 26, 2008.
  24. US District Court N. D. Illinois (2007). Abbott Labs. v. Sandoz, Inc. 532 F. Supp. 2d 996. N.D. Ill. 2007.
  25. US District Court New Jersey (2008). Church & Dwight Co. v. Abbott Labs. No. 05-2142. Jun. 23, 2008.
  26. US District Court M.D. Pennsylvania (2007). Rhino Assocs., L.P. v. Berg Mfg. & Sales Corp. 1:04-cv-01611. March 29, 2007.
  27. U.S. District Court W.D. Wisconsin. Franklin Elec. Co. v. Dover Corp. 05-C-598-S. Nov. 15, 2007.
  28. US Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit (2016). Carson Optical Inc. v. eBay Inc. 2:15-cv-03793. June 29, 2015.
  29. US Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit (2016). Carson Optical Inc. v. eBay Inc. 2:15-cv-03793. June 29, 2015.
  30. - (2009). Arlington Indus. v. Bridgeport Fittings, Inc. No. 3:01-CV-0485. Feb. 4, 2009.
  31. - (2009). Funai Elec. Co. v. Daewoo Elecs. Corp. 616 F.3d 1357. Jan. 5, 2009.
  32. - (2009). Wordtech Sys. v. Integrated Network Solutions, Corp. No. 2009-1454. Jan. 14, 2009.
  33. - (2008). Baden Sports, Inc. v. Kabushiki Kaisha Molten. No. C06-210MJP. 541 F. Supp. 2d 1151. January 28, 2008.
  34. - (2008). Ball Aerosol & Specialty Container, Inc. v. Ltd. Brands, Inc. 2008-1333. Feb 9, 2008.
  35. - (2008). Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. v. W.L. Gore & Assocs. Inc. No. 14-1114. June 14, 2008.
  36. - (2008). Black & Decker, Inc. v. Robert Bosch Tool Corp. No. 04 C 7955. February 20, 2008.
  37. - (2008). Broadcom Corp. v. Qualcomm, Inc., 543 F.3d. Sept. 24, 2008.
  38. - (2008). Cohesive Techs. Inc. v. Waters Corp. 543 F.3d. October 07, 2008.
  39. - (2008). Finisar Corp. v. DirecTV Group, Inc. 523 F.3d 1323. April 18, 2008.
  40. - (2008). Lexion Med., LLC v. Northgate Techs. Inc. 292 F. App"™x 42. April 22, 2011.
  41. - (2008). Minks v. Polaris Indus., 546 F.3d 1364. October 17, 2008.
  42. - (2007). ACCO Brands, Inc. v. ABA Locks Mfr. Co. 06-1570. December 9, 2007.
  43. - (2007). Lucent Techs., Inc. v. Gateway Inc. No. 07-CV-2000-H. October 30, 2007.
  44. - (2007). In Seagate Tech., LLC, 497 F.3d 1360. March 4, 2007.
  45. - (2007). MercExchange, L.L.C. v. eBay. 660 F. Supp.2d 653. Dec. 11, 2007.
  46. - (2006). DSU Med. Corp. v. JMS Co. 471 F.3d 1293. April 6, 2006.
  47. - (2004). Knorr-Bremse Systeme Fuer Nutzfahrzeuge GmbH v. Dana Corp. 383 F.3d 1337. September 13, 2004.
  48. - (1992). Read Corp. v. Portec, Inc. 970 F.2d 816. Sept. 23, 1992.
  49. - (1986). Kloster Speedsteel AB v. Crucible, Inc. 793 F.2d 1565. June 11, 1986.
  50. US Supreme Court (2007). Safeco Ins. Co. of Am. v. Burr. 551 U.S. 47. June 4, 2007.
  51. - (2006). eBay Inc. v. Mercexchange. L.L.C. 547 U.S. 388. May 15, 2006.