Defenses To Patent Infringement Experimental Use Exhaustion And License.
Overview of Patent Infringement Defenses
Patent infringement occurs when a party makes, uses, sells, or imports a patented invention without authorization. Common defenses include:
Experimental Use (Research Exception) – Using a patented invention for non-commercial, purely experimental purposes may not constitute infringement.
Patent Exhaustion (First Sale Doctrine) – Once a patent holder sells a patented item, they cannot control its further use or resale.
License Defense – If the infringer has a valid license from the patent owner, they are authorized to practice the patent.
1. Experimental Use Defense Cases
a. Madey v. Duke University (2002, Fed. Cir.)
Facts:
Duke University used patented laser equipment for academic research.
The patent holder claimed infringement.
Legal Issue:
Does the experimental use exception apply to research at universities?
Holding:
Court ruled experimental use defense is extremely narrow.
Even non-commercial, academic research can infringe if it furthers the institution’s legitimate business interests (here, research leading to grants, reputation, or patents).
Significance:
Strongly limits the experimental use defense.
Research at universities is not automatically exempt from infringement.
b. Bayer AG v. Housey Pharmaceuticals (2002, D. Del.)
Facts:
Housey tested compounds covered by Bayer’s patents for developing new drugs.
Legal Issue:
Can preclinical testing for drug discovery constitute non-infringing experimental use?
Holding:
Court ruled that commercial intent is key, but some early-stage testing purely for knowledge might be protected.
Significance:
Experimental use may apply in very early-stage research with no commercial benefit.
Reinforces that once testing has commercial implications, defense fails.
c. Roche Products, Inc. v. Bolar Pharmaceutical Co. (1984, Fed. Cir.)
Facts:
Bolar used Roche’s patented drug to test bioequivalence before FDA approval.
Legal Issue:
Is premarketing testing a protected experimental use?
Holding:
Court ruled Bolar exemption limited: commercial testing for regulatory approval still considered infringement under normal patent law.
This led to the Bolar Amendment in U.S. law, allowing generic drug testing before patent expiration.
Significance:
Demonstrates the evolution of experimental use defense in pharmaceutical contexts.
2. Patent Exhaustion Defense Cases
Patent exhaustion prevents the patent owner from controlling a product after an authorized sale.
a. Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc. (2008, U.S. Supreme Court)
Facts:
LG Electronics licensed patents to Intel. Intel sold components to Quanta, who combined them to make computers. LG sued for infringement.
Legal Issue:
Does the authorized sale of a component exhaust LG’s patent rights?
Holding:
Supreme Court ruled authorized sale of a component exhausts patent rights, even if combined with other parts.
Significance:
Strong precedent for the first sale doctrine in patent law.
Limits patent holders’ post-sale control.
b. Lifescan, Inc. v. Shasta Technologies, LLC (Fed. Cir. 2009)
Facts:
Shasta purchased patented glucose meters from Lifescan and resold them. Lifescan sued.
Holding:
Court ruled patent exhaustion applies to authorized sales, preventing Lifescan from suing the reseller.
Significance:
Confirms that exhaustion applies even in resale markets.
Protects secondary market transactions from infringement claims.
c. Jazz Photo Corp. v. ITC (2001, Fed. Cir.)
Facts:
Jazz imported refurbished cameras patented by Fuji.
Holding:
Authorized sale of patented goods abroad may exhaust U.S. patent rights if sale is unconditional.
However, some restrictions on import/export may limit exhaustion.
Significance:
Shows nuances in international exhaustion rules.
3. License Defense Cases
A license allows a defendant to practice the patent legally. The license may be express or implied.
a. General Talking Pictures Corp. v. Western Electric Co. (1938, U.S. Supreme Court)
Facts:
General Talking Pictures had a license to manufacture vacuum tubes for private, non-commercial use but exceeded scope.
Holding:
Court held license defense is limited to scope of the license.
Using the patent beyond authorized fields is still infringement.
Significance:
Emphasizes careful interpretation of licensing agreements.
b. De Forest Radio Tel. & Tel. Co. v. United States (1921, D.C. Cir.)
Facts:
Licensee was sued for infringing patents in territories not covered by license.
Holding:
Court ruled licenses are territorial and field-specific.
Significance:
Reinforces that infringement may still occur outside licensed territory or field.
c. Mallinckrodt, Inc. v. Medipart, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 1992)
Facts:
Mallinckrodt sold medical devices with post-sale restrictions. Medipart resold them.
Holding:
Federal courts recognized that patent holders can impose lawful restrictions via license agreements.
Post-sale restrictions may be enforceable if reasonable and clearly expressed.
Significance:
Licensing agreements can limit exhaustion, creating contractual defenses against infringement.
Key Takeaways
| Defense Type | Key Principle | Case Highlights | Limitations |
|---|---|---|---|
| Experimental Use | Using patented invention for non-commercial research | Madey v. Duke (limits university research), Bayer v. Housey | Narrow; commercial or grant-funded research may fail defense |
| Patent Exhaustion | Authorized sale ends patent rights over that item | Quanta v. LG, Lifescan v. Shasta | Only applies to authorized sales; restrictions or foreign sales may complicate |
| License | License authorizes use | General Talking Pictures, Mallinckrodt | Scope, field, and territorial limits; misuse outside license still infringes |
RELATED Blog
comments