Closing One Loophole and Opening Another: Why Section 271(f) Patent Infringement Should Apply to Method Patents After Cardiac Pacemakers

Authors

Michael Silhasek

Library of Congress Authority File

http://id.loc.gov/authorities/names/n79122466

Document Type

Comments

Abstract

This Comment will address the applicability of § 271(f) to method patents compared with other patented inventions-machines, manufactures, and compositions of matter. Part II will briefly discuss the primary purpose of the infringement statute, which is to encourage inventive action by granting rights to a patent holder. Part III will discuss the history of § 271(f) and the section's applicability to process patents. The Federal Circuit questioned the section's applicability to method patents, then affirmed it, then questioned it again, and then, most recently, rejected it. Part IV will examine other foreign activity that could lead to domestic infringement. Part V will take a step back and evaluate infringement analysis for apparatus and method patents. Specifically, it will question whether it makes sense to provide protection to some patents while denying it to others. A handful of cases and scenarios will illustrate why it does not. Finally, Part VI will suggest what can be done to fix this inconsistency. Although recognizing the difficulties inherent in addressing this problem, this Comment will suggest legislation that will evenly distribute infringement protection for patented inventions.

Recommended Citation

Michael Silhasek, Closing One Loophole and Opening Another: Why Section 271(f) Patent Infringement Should Apply to Method Patents After Cardiac Pacemakers, 48 San Diego L. Rev. 677 (2011).
Available at: https://digital.sandiego.edu/sdlr/vol48/iss2/5