Evidence Of Extraterritorial Actions Relevant To Claim Of Induced Infringement Under 35 USC 371(b)

The World in U.S. Courts: Winter 2018 - Intellectual Property – Patents

RETURN TO Winter 2018 Edition

Kaneka Corp. v. SKC Kolon PI, Inc., US District Court for the Central District of California, December 8, 2017

A Japanese company sued a Korean company and its US subsidiary for infringing patents related to polyimide films, which can be made into flexible printed circuit boards. Following a jury trial that ended with a verdict of infringement, the parties filed various motions. Among other issues, the Court rejected the defendants’ argument that the verdict for inducing infringement under 35 USC 371(b) was impermissibly based on “on activities and market conditions in Korea.” The Court concluded that Section 371(b) lacked language limiting the statute’s geographic applicability contained in other provisions of the Patent Act and thus found extraterritorial conduct potentially relevant. It also observed that in any event the analysis of the plaintiff’s damages expert “centers on pinpointing how much of Defendants’ infringing activity took place within the United States.”

RETURN TO Winter 2018 Edition

RETURN TO The World in US Courts Home Page

US Laws Discussed

Editorial Board