January 6, 2020
Authored and Edited by Ruohan (Jack) Li; Samhitha Muralidhar Medatia; Elizabeth A. Niemeyer
In Syngenta Crop Prot., LLC v. Willowood, LLC, No. 2018-1614; -2044 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 18, 2019), the Federal Circuit vacated the district court’s non-infringement judgment regarding a claimed process and remanded for further proceedings. The Court held that infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(g), which prohibits importing, offering to sell, selling, or using within the US a product made by a process patented in the US, does not require a single entity to perform all of the steps of a patented process.
Syngenta sued several Willowood entities for patent and copyright infringement relating to Willowood’s azoxystrobin pesticide. Certain asserted claims were directed to methods for producing the pesticide. Denying Syngenta’s motion for summary judgment of infringement, the district court interpreted section 271(g) to require that all steps of a patented process be performed by or at the direction or control of a single entity before liability arises.
On appeal, the Federal Circuit found that the district court erroneously read section 271(g), holding that section 271(g) does not require a single entity to perform all of the steps of a patented process. Instead, infringement may arise from the importation into the US or offer to sell, sale, or use within the US of a product made by a process patented in the US, regardless of who performs the patented process. Accordingly, the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s non-infringement judgment and remanded for further consideration of one Willowood entity’s role with respect to the imported azoxystrobin compound.
The Federal Circuit also vacated and remanded the district court’s grant of summary judgment on Syngenta’s copyright claims. The Federal Circuit directed the district court to determine whether the Copyright Act would prohibit Willowood’s use of any portion of Syngenta’s label, before examining whether the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act precludes Syngenta’s copyright claims.
Copyright © 2020 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.
June 10-12, 2024
San Francisco
Lecture
Patent Protection for Software-Related Inventions in Europe and the USA Training Course
June 5, 2024
Hybrid
10th Annual Georgia Asian Pacific American Bar Association Gala
May 29, 2024
Atlanta
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.