October 11, 2017
Authored and Edited by Kelly S. Horn; Kevin D. Rodkey; Elizabeth D. Ferrill
In Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Motorola Mobility LLC, No. 16-1795 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 13, 2017), the Federal Circuit (among deciding other issues) reversed the district court’s order denying JMOL of noninfringement, holding that there was not substantial evidence to support a jury verdict that Motorola’s customers directly infringed an asserted claim by “using” the Motorola’s devices. Intellectual Ventures asserted that Motorola’s customers’ use of Motorola’s devices directly infringed its claim directed to a “communication device” including an “authenticating device” that “generate[s] a delivery report.” A jury found direct infringement and the district court denied Motorola’s motion for JMOL of noninfringement. Motorola appealed.
On appeal, the Federal Circuit held that Motorola’s customers did not directly infringe this system claim because there not substantial evidence to show that they “used” the “authenticating device” to generate the claimed delivery reports. The court explained that direct infringement by “using” a claimed system requires a patentee to show both “control” and “benefit” of each claim element by the alleged infringer. The court then observed that Intellectual Ventures failed provide evidence that Motorola’s customers generated the claimed “delivery reports,” received the “delivery reports,” or benefitted from those reports. Accordingly, Intellectual Ventures did not set forth evidence showing that the customers “used” the “authenticating device” as claimed. The court then held that substantial evidence did not support the jury’s infringement finding and reversed the district court’s denial of JMOL of noninfringement.
Copyright © 2017 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP.
DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information.
Lecture
Patent Protection for Software-Related Inventions in Europe and the USA Training Course
June 5, 2024
Hybrid
Workshop
Life Sciences Workshop: Updates and Key Trends in Pharmaceutical and Biotechnology IP Law
May 2, 2024
Cambridge
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.