Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 07 NOVEMBER 2007

Showing Of Direct Infringement Requires Specific Proof

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit overturned a jury verdict of vicarious liability based on inducement because the plaintiff failed to meet its underlying burden to prove direct infringement.

United StatesIntellectual Property

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit overturned a jury verdict of vicarious liability based on inducement because the plaintiff failed to meet its underlying burden to prove direct infringement. ACCO Brands, Inc. v. ABA Locks Manufacturer Co., Ltd., Case No. 06-1570 (Fed. Cir., Sept. 12, 2007) (Lourie, J.).

A manufacturer, ABA Locks, and distributor, Belkin Components, were sued for selling products that allegedly infringe ACCO’s patents, which claim a locking system designed to prevent the theft of personal computers. The district court construed an essential element of the asserted claims relating to a method by which ACCO’s patented locks are used. At trial, under this construction, Belkin’s products were found to be capable of both infringing and non-infringing uses. The jury held that the defendants had willfully induced infringement of the asserted claims. ABA Locks appealed.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from