1. NCCU Academic Hub
  2. Publications
  3. College of Commerce
  4. Periodical Articles
  5. Item

Publications-Periodical Articles

Article View/Open

Publication Export

Google ScholarTM

NCCU Library

Citation Infomation

Related Publications in TAIR

題名 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)
作者 陳秉訓
Chen, Ping-Hsun
貢獻者 科管智財所
關鍵詞 patent; active inducement; indirect infringement; patent infringement; willful-blindness standard; specific intent
日期 2015-10
上傳時間 2-Mar-2016 14:23:10 (UTC+8)
摘要 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.
關聯 Queen Mary Journal of Intellectual Property,5(4),516-524
資料類型 article
DOI http://dx.doi.org/10.4337/qmjip.2015.04.09
dc.contributor 科管智財所
dc.creator (作者) 陳秉訓zh_TW
dc.creator (作者) Chen, Ping-Hsun
dc.date (日期) 2015-10
dc.date.accessioned 2-Mar-2016 14:23:10 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.available 2-Mar-2016 14:23:10 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 2-Mar-2016 14:23:10 (UTC+8)-
dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/81772-
dc.description.abstract (摘要) 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 (關聯) Queen Mary Journal of Intellectual Property,5(4),516-524
dc.subject (關鍵詞) patent; active inducement; indirect infringement; patent infringement; willful-blindness standard; specific intent
dc.title (題名) 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 (資料類型) article
dc.identifier.doi (DOI) 10.4337/qmjip.2015.04.09
dc.doi.uri (DOI) http://dx.doi.org/10.4337/qmjip.2015.04.09