Filewrapper®

Determining a "Joint Enterprise" in the Wake of Akamai's Divided Infringement Standards

December 21, 2017
Post by Sarah M. Dickhut

On December 19, 2017, the Federal Circuit released an opinion in Travel Sentry, Inc. v. Tropp, clarifying further the requirements for satisfying divided infringement, i.e. infringement involving multiple actors carrying out the claimed steps of a method patent where no single accused infringer has performed all the steps. The opinion stems from a series of cases between Travel Sentry and David Tropp. Tropp owns patents directed to methods of improving airline luggage inspection through the use of dual-access locks. The luggage has a dual lock system where one lock combination is available to the consumer, and the other is a master key lock portion available to the TSA. In practice, the TSA can search the bag and re-lock the baggage, providing the consumer with secure baggage before and after TSA inspection.

Tropp’s method patents require the steps of (1) making the dual lock available to the consumer and (2) providing the master key lock portion to the TSA. Travel Sentry clearly provides the first step, but the TSA provides the second step, rather than Travel Sentry itself. Thus, the key issue is whether the TSA’s activity of supplying and utilizing the master key was sufficiently controlled and/or properly a “joint enterprise” as required by Akamai v. Limelight.

The district court determined that Travel Sentry “facilitated” the TSA’s activity, but that this facilitation did not rise to the level of control, or of a joint enterprise under Akamai. Travel Sentry’s actions fell short because there was not enough evidence to show Travel Sentry was able to influence the TSA’s actions to the point where Travel Sentry “masterminded” the enactment of the patented process.

Upon review, the Federal Circuit vacated the district court’s judgment on the grounds that the district court interpreted Akamai’s understanding of “joint enterprise” too narrowly. In addition, the district failed to consider “the context of the particular facts presented” in the case, such as the level of cooperation expected between a government agency and an infringer. The Federal Circuit noted that evidence of cooperation that was presented may be sufficient for a jury to attribute the TSA’s activities to Travel Sentry.

Regardless of the outcome upon remand to the district court, the Federal Circuit’s opinion in this case opens up a broader understanding of a “joint enterprise” within the context of divided infringement.

Sarah Dickhut is an Associate Attorney in the Chemical/Biotech Patent Practice Group at McKee, Voorhees & Sease, PLC. For additional information please visit www.ipmvs.com or contact Sarah directly via email at sarah.dickhut@ipmvs.com.

 




Post Categories

Comments (0)
Post a Comment



Captcha Image
Return to the Filewrapper Blog

Search Posts

Purpose

The attorneys of McKee, Voorhees & Sease, P.L.C. designed this blog as an informational and educational resource about intellectual property law for our clients, other attorneys, and the public as a whole. Our goal is to provide cutting-edge information about recent developments in intellectual property law, including relevant case law updates, proposed legislation, and intellectual property law in the news.

Disclaimer

McKee, Voorhees & Sease, P.L.C. provides this blog for general informational purposes only. By using this blog, you agree that the information on this blog does not constitute legal or other professional advice and no attorney-client or other relationship is created between you and McKee, Voorhees & Sease, P.L.C. Do not consider this blog to be a substitute for obtaining legal advice from a qualified, licensed attorney. While we try to revise this blog on a regular basis, it may not reflect the most current legal developments. We consciously refrain from expressing opinions on this blog and instead, offer it as a form of information and education, however if there appears an expression of opinion, realize that those views are indicative of the individual and not of the firm as a whole.

Connect with MVS

Enter your name and email address to recieve the latest news and updates from us and our attorneys.

Subscribe to: MVS Newsletter

Subscribe to: Filewrapper® Blog Updates

  I have read and agree to the terms and conditions of McKee, Voorhees & Sease, P.L.C.

Captcha Image