The standard for contributory infringement it set out by the statute in 35 U.S.C. 271(c):
"Whoever offers to sell or sells within the United States or imports into the United States a component of a patented machine, manufacture, combination or composition, or a material or an apparatus for use in practicing a patented process, constituting a material part of the invention, knowing the same to be especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of such patent, and not a staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use, shall be liable as a contributory infringer."
First, there must be direct infringement of the patent. See Deepsouth Packing Co. v. Laitram Corp. 406 U.S. 518 (1972). Second, the alleged contributory infringer must have been aware of the patent and that his or her actions would lead to infringement of the patent. See Aro Mfg., Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co., 377 U.S. 476 (1964). Third, there must not be a substantial non-infringing use of the component in question. See Dawson Chemical Co. v. Rohm and Haas Co., 448 U.S. 176 (1980). That is to say, the sale of some article adapted to both an infringing use and to some other lawful use is not sufficient.
"Whoever offers to sell or sells within the United States or imports into the United States a component of a patented machine, manufacture, combination or composition, or a material or an apparatus for use in practicing a patented process, constituting a material part of the invention, knowing the same to be especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of such patent, and not a staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use, shall be liable as a contributory infringer."
First, there must be direct infringement of the patent. See Deepsouth Packing Co. v. Laitram Corp. 406 U.S. 518 (1972). Second, the alleged contributory infringer must have been aware of the patent and that his or her actions would lead to infringement of the patent. See Aro Mfg., Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co., 377 U.S. 476 (1964). Third, there must not be a substantial non-infringing use of the component in question. See Dawson Chemical Co. v. Rohm and Haas Co., 448 U.S. 176 (1980). That is to say, the sale of some article adapted to both an infringing use and to some other lawful use is not sufficient.
RSS Feed