joshua miller ieor 190g spring 2009 uc berkeley college of engineering 3/30/2009 dsu medical corp....
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Joshua Miller IEOR 190G Spring 2009 UC Berkeley College of Engineering 3/30/2009 DSU Medical Corp. v. JMS Co. December 13, 2006 Patent No. 5,112,311 (“the](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022070323/56649da65503460f94a90f4f/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Joshua MillerIEOR 190G Spring 2009
UC Berkeley College of Engineering3/30/2009
DSU Medical Corp. v. JMS Co. December 13, 2006
Patent No. 5,112,311 (“the ‘311 patent”)
Claims a guarded, winged-needle assembly which guards standard winged-needle-sets to prevent needle-stick injuries.
Contributory Infringement Inducement of Infringement
![Page 2: Joshua Miller IEOR 190G Spring 2009 UC Berkeley College of Engineering 3/30/2009 DSU Medical Corp. v. JMS Co. December 13, 2006 Patent No. 5,112,311 (“the](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022070323/56649da65503460f94a90f4f/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
“311”
• DSU’s medical device
• Guarded, winged-needle assembly.
• Used to prevent needle sticks.
![Page 3: Joshua Miller IEOR 190G Spring 2009 UC Berkeley College of Engineering 3/30/2009 DSU Medical Corp. v. JMS Co. December 13, 2006 Patent No. 5,112,311 (“the](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022070323/56649da65503460f94a90f4f/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
![Page 4: Joshua Miller IEOR 190G Spring 2009 UC Berkeley College of Engineering 3/30/2009 DSU Medical Corp. v. JMS Co. December 13, 2006 Patent No. 5,112,311 (“the](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022070323/56649da65503460f94a90f4f/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
![Page 5: Joshua Miller IEOR 190G Spring 2009 UC Berkeley College of Engineering 3/30/2009 DSU Medical Corp. v. JMS Co. December 13, 2006 Patent No. 5,112,311 (“the](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022070323/56649da65503460f94a90f4f/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Claims
• Claim 1: requires “a guard slidably enclosing a sliding assembly comprising a needle and a winged needle hub”
– Trial Court decides that this requires the guard to substantially contain the needle assembly at all times
For direct infringement one needs a needle and guard where needle is substantially within the guard.
![Page 6: Joshua Miller IEOR 190G Spring 2009 UC Berkeley College of Engineering 3/30/2009 DSU Medical Corp. v. JMS Co. December 13, 2006 Patent No. 5,112,311 (“the](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022070323/56649da65503460f94a90f4f/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Accused Device
• Australian company ITL’s “Platypus”: sold to JMS
• Sold in open-shell configuration by JMS in US
![Page 7: Joshua Miller IEOR 190G Spring 2009 UC Berkeley College of Engineering 3/30/2009 DSU Medical Corp. v. JMS Co. December 13, 2006 Patent No. 5,112,311 (“the](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022070323/56649da65503460f94a90f4f/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
DSU Takes Action
• DSU sues JMS for direct infringement
• DSU sues ITL for induced infringement
•District Court rules that JMS directly and indirectly infringes
•No direct or indirect infringement by ITL because ITL sells the guard opened and without the needle assembly inside
![Page 8: Joshua Miller IEOR 190G Spring 2009 UC Berkeley College of Engineering 3/30/2009 DSU Medical Corp. v. JMS Co. December 13, 2006 Patent No. 5,112,311 (“the](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022070323/56649da65503460f94a90f4f/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Infringement
Direct Infringement
Indirect Infringement
Induced Infringement
Contributory Infringement
Liable by actively and knowingly aiding and abetting another's direct infringement of the patent.
Liable if one supplies a component or material especially adapted for infringing use.
![Page 9: Joshua Miller IEOR 190G Spring 2009 UC Berkeley College of Engineering 3/30/2009 DSU Medical Corp. v. JMS Co. December 13, 2006 Patent No. 5,112,311 (“the](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022070323/56649da65503460f94a90f4f/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Induced Infringement
– Act & Intent
Direct Infringement
![Page 10: Joshua Miller IEOR 190G Spring 2009 UC Berkeley College of Engineering 3/30/2009 DSU Medical Corp. v. JMS Co. December 13, 2006 Patent No. 5,112,311 (“the](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022070323/56649da65503460f94a90f4f/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Contributory Infringement
• ITL’s Contributory activities occurred outside of USNo contributory infringement by ITL because:
“[t]he record does not show that the Platypus guards ITL shipped into the United States in the open-shell configuration were ever put into an infringing configuration, i.e., closed-shell”
![Page 11: Joshua Miller IEOR 190G Spring 2009 UC Berkeley College of Engineering 3/30/2009 DSU Medical Corp. v. JMS Co. December 13, 2006 Patent No. 5,112,311 (“the](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022070323/56649da65503460f94a90f4f/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Pre-DSU (Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc.,)
• No Knowledge of Patent Required
Post-DSU (Manville Sales Corp. v. Paramount Systems, Inc.)
• Inducer must now know of the patent.
• Mere knowledge of possible infringement
or underlying acts (alleged to constitute
infringement) is no longer sufficient.
Induced Infringement
![Page 12: Joshua Miller IEOR 190G Spring 2009 UC Berkeley College of Engineering 3/30/2009 DSU Medical Corp. v. JMS Co. December 13, 2006 Patent No. 5,112,311 (“the](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022070323/56649da65503460f94a90f4f/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Outcome
• Jury awards $5,055,211 to DSU for JMS’ infringement
• A defendant must intend to cause infringement of the patent, rather than simply intend to cause the acts which happen to infringe
![Page 13: Joshua Miller IEOR 190G Spring 2009 UC Berkeley College of Engineering 3/30/2009 DSU Medical Corp. v. JMS Co. December 13, 2006 Patent No. 5,112,311 (“the](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022070323/56649da65503460f94a90f4f/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
The Rule Is Clarified
“Inducement requires evidence of culpable conduct, directed to encouraging another’s infringement, not merely that the inducer had knowledge of the direct infringer’s activities.”
• This decision likely will make it more difficult to enforce patents against parties who do not directly infringe.
![Page 14: Joshua Miller IEOR 190G Spring 2009 UC Berkeley College of Engineering 3/30/2009 DSU Medical Corp. v. JMS Co. December 13, 2006 Patent No. 5,112,311 (“the](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022070323/56649da65503460f94a90f4f/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Implications of DSU vs. JMS
• How to defend against inducement charges?– A good faith belief based on an objectively
reasonable opinion of counsel of no direct infringement can provide a defense to a charge of inducing infringement
• Burden of proving inducement substantially increases
![Page 15: Joshua Miller IEOR 190G Spring 2009 UC Berkeley College of Engineering 3/30/2009 DSU Medical Corp. v. JMS Co. December 13, 2006 Patent No. 5,112,311 (“the](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022070323/56649da65503460f94a90f4f/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Cont…
• Competent Opinions of Counsel – important to negating allegations of intent to infringe prong
• Leads to a dilemma regarding opinions of counsel
![Page 16: Joshua Miller IEOR 190G Spring 2009 UC Berkeley College of Engineering 3/30/2009 DSU Medical Corp. v. JMS Co. December 13, 2006 Patent No. 5,112,311 (“the](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022070323/56649da65503460f94a90f4f/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
References
• http://www.google.com/patents?id=YvYcAAAAEBAJ&dq=5,112,311
• http://www.fyiplaw.com/publications/DSUvJMS.pdf• http://www.nixonpeabody.com/linked_media/publications
/FederalCircuitPatentWatch_12132006_DSU.pdf