Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://ah.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/81772
DC Field | Value | Language |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor | 科管智財所 | |
dc.creator | 陳秉訓 | zh_TW |
dc.creator | Chen, Ping-Hsun | |
dc.date | 2015-10 | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2016-03-02T06:23:10Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2016-03-02T06:23:10Z | - |
dc.date.issued | 2016-03-02T06:23:10Z | - |
dc.identifier.uri | http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/81772 | - |
dc.description.abstract | The United States patent law imposes a liability on a person who actively induces others to infringe a patent. Infringement based on ‘active inducement’ requires an infringer to know the patent-in-suit. In 2008, Apeldyn Corp. (‘Apeldyn’) sued AU Optronics Corp. (‘AUO’) for patent infringement. In 2011, AUO filed a summary judgment motion and won the issue of active inducement. Apeldyn relied on a 2011 decision of the Supreme Court of United States, Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v SEB S.A., to assert that AUO willfully blinded itself from knowing the patent-in-suit. Apeldyn asserted that AUO`s patent department should have monitored competitors’ patents. However, the district court disagreed. Under Global-Tech Appliances, Inc., an infringer under active inducement must have a culpable mind to encourage or assist others to infringe a patent. Merely knowing a risk of patent infringement is not enough. So, the fact that AUO had a big patent department at most proves that AUO was reckless or negligent. The implication is that a company with a patent department does not have a duty to discover competitors’ patents that it might infringe. However, this implication is limited to a scenario where a company does not study competitors’ products. | |
dc.format.extent | 136 bytes | - |
dc.format.mimetype | text/html | - |
dc.relation | Queen Mary Journal of Intellectual Property,5(4),516-524 | |
dc.subject | patent; active inducement; indirect infringement; patent infringement; willful-blindness standard; specific intent | |
dc.title | Having a patent department alone cannot constitute a specific intent to cause direct infringement under US patent law Apeldyn Corp. v AU Optronics Corp., 522 F. App`x 912, 912 (Fed. Cir. 2013) | |
dc.type | article | |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.4337/qmjip.2015.04.09 | |
dc.doi.uri | http://dx.doi.org/10.4337/qmjip.2015.04.09 | |
item.openairecristype | http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_18cf | - |
item.cerifentitytype | Publications | - |
item.grantfulltext | restricted | - |
item.fulltext | With Fulltext | - |
item.openairetype | article | - |
Appears in Collections: | 期刊論文 |
Files in This Item:
File | Description | Size | Format | |
---|---|---|---|---|
index.html | 136 B | HTML2 | View/Open |
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.