Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc.
v. Maersk Contrs. USA, Inc., 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 17181 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 18,
2010) involved a non-infringing product that had never entered the United
States. Nonetheless, the court ruled that infringement of United States patents
may have occurred. How could this be? In this Analysis, Thomas C. Carey
analyzes the issue. He writes:
The product was commissioned
by a Danish company, manufactured by a contractor in Singapore, leased (while
being made) to a subsidiary of a Norwegian company, and modified while in
Singapore specifically to avoid infringing U.S. patents. While the lawsuit
unfolded, the product was still in Singapore.
The trial court found that
no infringement could arise under these facts and granted summary judgment to
the defendant shipping company. On appeal, the Federal Circuit established a
precedent in finding that these facts could support a claim of infringement.
. . . .
Transocean, unlike earlier cases,
clearly involved an offer for sale. The key issue presented was the statutory
limitation "within the United States." Does this limitation apply to
the offer or to the sale? In other words, must the offer be made in the United
States, or does the statute cover offers made anywhere in the world as long as
the sale would result in the product being delivered to the United States?
Access the full version of When Does "Offer for Sale"
Made Outside U.S. Result in Infringement of Patent? with your lexis.com ID.
Additional fees may be incurred. (approx. 5 pages)
If you do not have a lexis.com ID, you can purchase the
Emerging Issues Analysis content through our lexisONE Research Packages