April 12, 2018
IP Law Daily
IP Law Daily interviewed Finnegan partner Jacob Schroeder to discuss the WesternGeco v. ION Geophysical case at the Supreme Court. The case addresses a patent owner's ability to recover damages resulting from sales or uses of infringing products occurring internationally.
WesternGeco sued ION Geophysical for infringing four patents covering technologies that search for oil and gas deposits underneath the ocean. A Texas jury found that ION willfully infringed all of the asserted claims under 35 U.S.C. §271(f), which prohibits the supply from the United States of "all or a substantial portion of the components of a patented invention" for combination abroad. WesternGeco was awarded $12 million in reasonable royalties and over $93 million in lost profits caused by ION's infringement. ION appealed, and the Federal Circuit affirmed the royalties award but reversed the lost profits award on the ground that the Patent Act does not permit the recovery of lost profits for third parties’ extraterritorial uses of a system patented in the United States. WesternGeco appealed to the Supreme Court to determine whether the Federal Circuit "erred holding that lost profits arising from prohibited combinations occurring outside of the United States are categorically unavailable in cases in which patent infringement is proven under 35 U.S.C. §271(f)."
According to Jacob, Congress enacted Section 271(f) in response to Deepsouth Packing Co. v. Laitram, 406 U.S. 518 (1972). In that case, the Supreme Court applied the presumption against extraterritorial application to find that a company avoided continued infringement of a competitor’s patented shrimp deveining machine by exporting all of the components of shrimp deveining machine for assembly abroad. The defendant did not violate Section 271(a) because the completed invention was not "made" in the United States. Congress closed this loophole by adding subsection (f) to Section 271 to extend infringement liability to the domestic supply of the components of a patented invention for assembly abroad. He also noted that there is nothing in Section 284 that territorially limits recovery of damages. The restriction appears in the general liability provision, Section 271(a). Section 271(f) territorially expands liability, but mentions nothing about the recovery of damages. Considered narrowly, the question is whether "adequate compensation" under Section 284 may include foreign lost profits caused by infringement under the expanded liability provided by Section 271(f). However, the broader and more significant question is whether Section 284’s "adequate compensation" language may include the recovery of lost profits from any infringing foreign uses or sales that are caused by domestic infringement.
Jacob believes that the Court’s decision could have a major impact on the innovation in the United States. If the Court allows a patent owner to recover all damages for which it can show causation—including possibly large world-wide damages for a relatively trivial act of infringement occurring in the United States—that could discourage innovation in the United States. Such a ruling potentially could have a detrimental impact on certain industries, like semiconductor manufacturers, that provide one component for a product manufactured or assembled overseas.
Award/Ranking
Finnegan Named Firm of the Year at the 2024 Managing Intellectual Property Americas Awards
April 26, 2024
Award/Ranking
Finnegan Shortlisted for the 2024 Asian Legal Business Japan Law Awards
April 26, 2024
Media Mention
Women in Business Law Americas Awards 2024: Three Finnegan Attorneys Shortlisted
April 7, 2024
Press Release
Finnegan and BMW Group Successfully Demolish Non-Practicing Entity NorthStar’s Efforts
April 3, 2024
Award/Ranking
Managing IP Americas Awards 2024: Finnegan Shortlisted for Nine Awards, Including Firm of the Year
March 12, 2024
Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.
We use cookies on this website to provide you with the best user experience. By accepting cookies, you agree to our use of cookies. Please note that if you opt not to accept or if you disable cookies, the “Your Finnegan” feature on this website will be disabled as well. For more information on how we use cookies, please see our Privacy Policy.
Finnegan is thrilled to announce the launch of our new blog, Ad Law Buzz, devoted solely to breaking news, developments, trends, and analysis in advertising law.