🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1991May20.225855.382@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca> dennis@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (Dennis Ferguson) writes:
> I'd point
> out that all patents are patents on methods.

This is not correct. Most patents are patents on actual, tangible
objects---in particular, drugs.

> And I'll bet PKP's lawyers (and even my dictionary) would not make as
> much of the difference between the definitions of "implement" and
> "make" as you do.

It is clear from court decisions that method patents are infringed only
by use. I can give you a few dozen citations agreeing with this.

> >As I recall, there are several decisions on this, all agreeing with you.
> >Contributory infringement doesn't require the direct infringement to be
> >in this country.
> I don't think you can have this both ways.

Oops, I got this backwards. It's the contributory infringement that
doesn't have to be in the country. ``Unlike direct infringement, which
must take place within the United States, contributory infringement does
not require any activity by contributory infringer in this country, as
long as direct infringement occurs here.'' Nippon Elec. Glass Co., Ltd.
v. Sheldon, D.C.N.Y. 1980, 489 F.Supp. 119. ``The doctrine of
contributory infringement applies only in cases in which a direct
infringement occurs in the United States.'' Cold Metal Process Co. v.
United Engineering & Foundry Co., C.A.Pa. 1956, 235 F.2d 224.

> I don't think use outside the United States infringes a US patent

This is correct.

---Dan