small-logo
ProfessionalsCapabilitiesInsights & NewsCareersLocations
About UsAlumniOpportunity & InclusionPro BonoCorporate Social Responsibility
Stay Connected:
facebookinstagramlinkedintwitteryoutube
  1. Insights & News

Client Alert

Infringement Liability Under Section 271(g) Is Not Contingent on a Single Entity Practicing a Patented Process

  • PDFPDF
    • Email
    • LinkedIn
    • Facebook
    • Twitter
    Share this page
  • PDFPDF
    • Email
    • LinkedIn
    • Facebook
    • Twitter
    Share this page

Client Alert

Infringement Liability Under Section 271(g) Is Not Contingent on a Single Entity Practicing a Patented Process

  • PDFPDF
    • Email
    • LinkedIn
    • Facebook
    • Twitter
    Share this page

1 Min Read

Author

Noori Torabi

Related Locations

Charlotte
Chicago
Los Angeles
San Francisco
Silicon Valley

Related Topics

Patent Infringement

Related Capabilities

Patent Litigation
Intellectual Property

Related Regions

North America

December 18, 2019

The patentee asserted infringement of patents directed to methods of manufacturing a fungicide under 35 U.S.C. Section 271(g). The accused infringer was a Hong Kong based company which contracted for the manufacture of the fungicide at issue in China and imported the fungicide into the United States. The district court denied the patentee’s motion for summary judgment of infringement after interpreting Section 271(g) as requiring that all steps of a claimed process be performed by, or attributable to, a single entity. After the jury found in favor of the accused infringer, the patentee appealed the court’s interpretation of Section 271(g).

The Federal Circuit agreed with the patentee and held that the district court erred by imposing a single-entity requirement on the performance of a patented process under Section 271(g). The statutory language is clear that the acts that give rise to liability under this Section are the importation, offer for sale, sale, or use within this country of a product that was made by a process patented in the United States. Nothing in the statutory language suggests that liability arises from the parties which perform the acts of practicing the patented process abroad. The context of the statute and legislative history confirm this reading. Further, applying a single-entity requirement to the practice of a patented process under Section 271(g) would, contrary to the intent of Congress, impose an undue evidentiary burden on patentees. The Federal Circuit thus vacated and reversed in relevant part, and remanded for further proceedings.

A copy of the opinion can be found here 

 

Related Professionals

Related Professionals

David Enzminger

Ivan Poullaos

Mike Rueckheim

Danielle Williams

David Enzminger

Ivan Poullaos

Mike Rueckheim

Danielle Williams

Logo
facebookinstagramlinkedintwitteryoutube

Copyright © 2025. Winston & Strawn LLP

AlumniCorporate Transparency Act Task ForceDEI Compliance Task ForceEqual Rights AmendmentLaw GlossaryThe Oval UpdateWinston MinutePrivacy PolicyCookie PolicyFraud & Scam AlertsNoticesSubscribeAttorney Advertising