{"id":11869,"date":"2022-03-28T14:58:12","date_gmt":"2022-03-28T20:58:12","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/?p=11869"},"modified":"2022-03-28T17:30:02","modified_gmt":"2022-03-28T23:30:02","slug":"use","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/?p=11869","title":{"rendered":"“Use”"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

I thought it was interesting that the Supreme Court is entertaining a statutory construction case for a statute that centers around the construction of “use.” The case is LeDure v. Union Pacific Railroad Company<\/a>. The Court heard oral argument this morning and the audio recording is available here:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

(a)<\/strong>Except as otherwise provided in this title, whoever<\/a> without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States or imports into the United States any patented invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent.<\/p>35 U.S.C. \u00a7271(a)<\/cite><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Some of the Federal Circuit’s recent “use” cases are:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Georgetown Rail Equipment Co. v. HOLLAND LP<\/em>, 867 F.3d 1229 (Fed. Cir. 2017).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Intellectual Ventures I v. Motorola Mobility<\/em>, 870 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2017).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Centillion Data Systems, LLC v. Qwest Communications Int’l, Inc.<\/em>, 631 F.3d 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2011).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

GRECIA v. McDONALD’S CORPORATION<\/em>, No. 2017-1672 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 6, 2018).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

SYNCHRONOSS TECHNOLOGIES, INC v. DROPBOX, INC.<\/em>, No. 2019-2196 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 12, 2021).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

From a cursory review of the briefs in LeDure<\/em>, however, it does not appear that any citations\/references were made to patent law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n