Gart v. Logitech was decided on August 21, 2001 on appeal from the Central District of California. The case involved many issues but this post will only focus on actual notice under § 287(a). In 1989, prior to the issuance of the patent-in-suit, plaintiff Gart approached defendant Logitech to discuss licensing the then-pending application. Logitec refused. In 1993, a third party took a royalty-bearing license from Gart, and manufactured and sold products, which it did not mark with the asserted patent’s number. Gart sent a letter to Logitech regarding the patent in April 1995, and the parties corresponded until March 1997. Gart filed a complaint against Logitech in July 1998. The district court granted Logitech’s motion for summary judgment to limit damages for failure to give notice until 1997 for certain products. The court further granted Logitech’s motion for summary judgment of no infringement, and denied Gart’s motion for summary judgment of literal infringement of one claim. Gart appealed.
The Federal Circuit vacated the grant of summary judgment as to no infringement of one claim, affirmed-in-part and reversed-in-part the summary judgement limiting damages, and remanded.
“When a patented article has been produced by a patentee or its licensee, the amount of damages the patentee can recover in an infringement suit is statutorily limited to those acts of infringement that occurred after the patentee gave the alleged infringer notice of infringement.” “The statute permits either constructive notice, which is accomplished by marking the article with the patent number, or actual notice.” Actual notice under § 287(a) requires an “affirmative communication to the alleged infringer of a specific charge of infringement by a specific accused product or device.” “Determining whether the patentee’s communication provides sufficient specificity regarding its belief that the recipient may be an infringer cannot take into consideration the knowledge or understanding of the alleged infringer, but must focus on the action of the patentee.” Thus, “whether or not the alleged infringer subjectively believed that the patentee’s letter was a charge of infringement has no bearing on the adequacy of notice.”
The Federal Circuit held that the 1995 and 1996 letters respectively effected actual notice as to the products referenced therein.
This volume is not sufficient to get overnight cialis tadalafil a man being less interested for lovemaking. If your disk is severely scratched, then it will certainly not be sample of viagra read by the console. By the time you are old, your hair tadalafil cheapest is beyond the help of modern medicine. For women it seems to work by helping them know what exactly they are consuming. levitra on line http://miamistonecrabs.com/fall-lacrosse/
The 1995 letter to Logitech “included a specific reference to claims 7 and 8 of the [asserted] patent, specific reference to Logitech’s selling of [a specific product], and noted that Logitech may wish to have its patent counsel examine the patent to determine whether a non-exclusive license under the patent is needed.” “The whole point of offering a license is to insulate a licensee from infringement charges by the licensor…. Thus, from an objective standpoint, the clear inference from the 1995 letter’s reference to specific claims of the patent, a specific product, and the suggestion that a license under the patent may be needed is that Gart believed the [Logitech’s product] infringed claims 7 and 8 of the [asserted] patent.”
The 1996 letter to Logitech included a copy of the asserted patent and “and indicated that Logitech might find that patent ‘particularly interesting’ relative to Logitech’s [specific product lines].” “Standing alone, this letter would not constitute effective actual notice because it does not reasonably convey that Gart believed Logitech was infringing the [asserted] patent by making and selling the [specific product lines].” But “the 1995 letter reasonably establishes Gart’s belief that Logitech’s manufacture and sales of at least [one product] may infringe claims of the [asserted] patent.” Thus, Logitech was notified of the infringement of its specific products noted in the 1996 letter because “that letter in conjunction with the 1995 letter reasonably apprises Logitech that Gart believed that the making and selling of [certain specific products] infringed the [asserted] patent.”
The Federal Circuit thus reversed the district court finding that Gart did not effect actual notice for certain products until 1997.