March 18, 2013
In Aristocrat v. International Game (CAFC 2010-1426), there was no direct infringement of gaming machine method claims because the accused infringer didn't control a player's actions. Bad claims drafting was the root problem here. Many prosecutors don't understand how claims are treated in litigation, as in this instance. On the finer point of indirect infringement, the CAFC noted inattention all around: "neither the parties, nor the district court in its summary judgment order, expend significant time on the question of indirect or induced infringement." The district court found non-infringement based upon outdated case law. (The CAFC and SCOTUS substantially change patent law willy-nilly on an irregular basis.) Current law of indirect infringement, under the Akamai precedent, is based upon the notion of a hypothetical "single party would be liable as a direct infringer." With all the facts and law before it, but too inattentive to do its job properly, the CAFC remanded for the district court to figure it out, while giving the law firms involved another welcome boost for more fees to their clients.
Posted by Patent Hawk at March 18, 2013 2:13 PM | Infringement