Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 18 OCTOBER 2017

Infringing "Use" Of Claimed System Requires "Control" And "Benefit" Of Each Claim Element

Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
Contributor
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP

Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP

Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP is one of the world’s largest firms focusing on...

View firm profile
Explore more from Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP

In Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Motorola Mobility LLC, No. 16-1795 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 13, 2017), the Federal Circuit (among deciding other issues) reversed the district court's order denying JMOL...

United StatesLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration

In Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Motorola Mobility LLC, No. 16-1795 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 13, 2017), the Federal Circuit (among deciding other issues) reversed the district court's order denying JMOL of noninfringement, holding that there was not substantial evidence to support a jury verdict that Motorola's customers directly infringed an asserted claim by "using" the Motorola's devices. Intellectual Ventures asserted that Motorola's customers' use of Motorola's devices directly infringed its claim directed to a "communication device" including an "authenticating device" that "generate[s] a delivery report." A jury found direct infringement and the district court denied Motorola's motion for JMOL of noninfringement. Motorola 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