Section 271(f)(2) focuses on domestic conduct. It provides that a company \u201cshall be liable as an infringer\u201d if it \u201csupplies\u201d certain components of a patented invention \u201cin or from the United States\u201d with the intent that they \u201cwill be combined outside of the United States in a manner that would infringe the patent if such combination occurred within the United States.\u201d The conduct that \u00a7271(f)(2) regulates\u2014i.e., its focus\u2014is the domestic act of \u201csuppl[ying] in or from the United States.\u201d As this Court has acknowledged, \u00a7271(f) vindicates domestic interests: It \u201cwas a direct response to a gap in our patent law,\u201d Microsoft Corp., 550 U. S., at 457, and \u201creach[es] components that are manufactured in the United States but assembled overseas,\u201d Life Technologies, 580 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 11). As the Federal Circuit explained, \u00a7271(f)(2) protects against \u201cdomestic entities who export components . . . from the United States.\u201d 791 F. 3d, at 1351.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Thomas would go on to rather emphatically state: \u201cThe conduct in this case that is relevant to that focus clearly occurred in the United States, as it was ION\u2019s domestic act of supplying the components that infringed WesternGeco\u2019s patents.\u201d<\/p>\n
To the dissenters \u2013 Justices Gorsuch and Breyer \u2013 Thomas and the majority made a rather stinging rebuke, correctly recognizing: \u201cTheir position wrongly conflates legal injury with the damages arising from that injury.\u201d<\/p>\n
[A] patent owner is entitled to recover \u201c\u2018the difference between [its] pecuniary condition after the infringement, and what [its] condition would have been if the infringement had not occurred.\u2019\u201d Aro Mfg. Co., supra, at 507. This recovery can include lost profits. See Yale Lock Mfg. Co. v. Sargent, 117 U. S. 536, 552\u2013553 (1886). And, as we hold today, it can include lost foreign profits when the patent owner proves infringement under \u00a7271(f)(2).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The only caveat of consequence is found in footnote 3, which states the Court did not address matters of proximate cause that could limit or preclude damages in particular cases, which obviously makes sense.<\/p>\n
This one is a win for patent owners. About time!<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Earlier today the United States Supreme Court issued a decision in WesternGeco LLC v. ION Geophysical Corp., which in a 7-2 decision ruled that a patent owner may recover lost foreign profits for infringement under 35 U. S. C. 271(f)(2). The question decided, as set forth in the opinion by Justice Thomas, writing for the majority, was: \u201cThe question in this case is whether these statutes allow the patent owner to recover for lost foreign profits.\u201d Thomas simply answered the question in the opening paragraph saying: \u201cWe hold that they do.\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":19234,"featured_media":98635,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"content-type":"","footnotes":"","_links_to":"","_links_to_target":""},"categories":[7202,228,3,586],"tags":[10730,3076,14834,10063,317,12050,1241,248],"yst_prominent_words":[28784,15330,28790,28789,28788,28786,28776,28782,28780,15834,28785,28787,28779,28778,28791,28783,28777,16486,28781,28792],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/ipwatchdog.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/98629"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/ipwatchdog.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/ipwatchdog.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ipwatchdog.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/19234"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ipwatchdog.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=98629"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/ipwatchdog.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/98629\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ipwatchdog.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/98635"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/ipwatchdog.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=98629"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ipwatchdog.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=98629"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ipwatchdog.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=98629"},{"taxonomy":"yst_prominent_words","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ipwatchdog.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/yst_prominent_words?post=98629"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}