English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 11 |  Items with full text/Total items : 88613/118155 (75%)
Visitors : 23476972      Online Users : 298
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
Scope Tips:
  • please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results
  • please goto advance search for comprehansive author search
  • Adv. Search
    HomeLoginUploadHelpAboutAdminister Goto mobile version
    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/81772


    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)
    Authors: 陳秉訓
    Chen, Ping-Hsun
    Contributors: 科管智財所
    Keywords: patent;active inducement;indirect infringement;patent infringement;willful-blindness standard;specific intent
    Date: 2015-10
    Issue Date: 2016-03-02 14:23:10 (UTC+8)
    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.
    Relation: Queen Mary Journal of Intellectual Property,5(4),516-524
    Data Type: article
    DOI 連結: http://dx.doi.org/10.4337/qmjip.2015.04.09
    DOI: 10.4337/qmjip.2015.04.09
    Appears in Collections:[科技管理與智慧財產研究所] 期刊論文

    Files in This Item:

    File Description SizeFormat
    index.html0KbHTML551View/Open


    All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.


    社群 sharing

    著作權政策宣告
    1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏,無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用,惟仍請適度,合理使用本網站之內容,以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用,則請先取得著作權人之授權。
    2.本網站之製作,已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益,如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者,請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw),維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback