English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 11 |  Items with full text/Total items : 88613/118155 (75%)
Visitors : 23491545      Online Users : 624
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/140.119/98998


    Title: The New Development of the Knowledge Requirement of Induced Infringement under the American Patent Law
    Authors: 陳秉訓
    Chen, Ping-Hsun
    Contributors: 科管智財所
    Keywords: American patent law;inducement;Global-Tech;indirect infringement;patent infringemen
    Date: 2013-12
    Issue Date: 2016-07-13 11:38:05 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: The United States has the most pro-inventor patent system which provides a full range of remedies for patentees facing infringement. 35 U.S.C. § 271 (b) provides, ”Whoever actively induces infringement of a patent shall be liable as an infringer.” So, a person accused of active inducement does not infringe the claimed invention directly. Instead, another person directly exploits the claimed invention. In 2011, the Supreme Court in Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A. interpreted the knowledgment requirement of § 271 (b) to mandate that the plaintiff has to prove that an inducer knew the patent-in-suit and the patent infringement. The Supreme Court clarified that there is no negligent or reckless inducer. However, what was not clear is whether the ”should have known” standard has been abrogated because the Supreme Court did not express that. After the Federal Circuit's Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Sys., Inc. in 2013, the ”should have known” standard was finally removed from the knowledge requirement. After Global-Tech, there were several district court decisions applying Global-Tech. This article analyzed several early district court decisions and found no effect on the traditional practice of finding inducement.
    Relation: NTUT Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Management, 2(2), 72-112
    Data Type: article
    DOI 連結: http://dx.doi.org/10.6521/NTUTJIPLM.2013.2(2).1
    DOI: 10.6521/NTUTJIPLM.2013.2(2).1
    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
    409655.pdf252KbAdobe PDF221View/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