{"id":1600,"date":"2017-06-16T15:13:54","date_gmt":"2017-06-16T19:13:54","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=1600"},"modified":"2017-06-17T15:27:32","modified_gmt":"2017-06-17T19:27:32","slug":"providing-a-service-alone-is-not-contributory-infringement","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=1600","title":{"rendered":"Providing a Service Alone is not Contributory Infringement"},"content":{"rendered":"

In the Cleveland Clinic Foundation v. True Health Diagnostics LLC<\/a>, [2016-1766](June 16, 2017), the Federal Circuit affirmed that the asserted claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,223,552,\u00a07,459,286, and 8,349,581 are not\u00a0directed to patent-eligible subject matter, and that Cleveland\u00a0Clinic failed to state a claim of contributory or induced\u00a0infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,170,260.<\/p>\n

The patents were all directed to\u00a0methods for detecting the risk of cardiovascular\u00a0disease in a patient. \u00a0The district court next found the three testing patents patent\u00a0ineligible under the two-step framework for analyzing\u00a0patent subject matter eligibility under \u00a7101\u00a0articulated in Alice<\/em>. \u00a0More specifically, the district court\u00a0found that the testing\u00a0patents\u2019 claims were directed to a law of nature under\u00a0Alice<\/em> step one because the claims were directed to the\u00a0correlation between MPO in the blood and the risk of\u00a0cardiovascular disease. \u00a0Under Alice<\/em> step two,\u00a0the district court found there was no saving inventive concept, employing\u00a0well-known methods to\u00a0detect MPO, comparing MPO levels with a\u00a0control value in what could be a bare mental process, and ultimately,\u00a0instructing a user to apply a natural law.<\/p>\n

The district court further found that True Health’s\u00a0testing service was not a\u00a0\u201cmaterial or apparatus\u201d that could form the basis for a contributory infringement claim. \u00a0The district court further found that the Cleveland Clinic did not allege facts sufficient\u00a0to show the specific intent to induce third parties to\u00a0infringe.<\/p>\n

The Federal Circuit affirmed the propriety of deciding \u00a7101 rejections at the motion\u00a0to dismiss stage, before claim construction or significant
\ndiscovery has commenced. \u00a0On the merits, the Federal Circuit agreed that the claims of the testing patents were directed to\u00a0multistep methods for observing the law of nature that\u00a0MPO correlates to cardiovascular disease. \u00a0Because this relationship exists in principle apart\u00a0from human action, the claims are directed to a patent ineligible\u00a0law of nature. \u00a0The Federal Circuit found the case similar to Ariosa<\/em>. \u00a0At step two of the Alice inquiry, the Federal Circuit agreed that\u00a0the practice of the method claims
\ndoes not result in an inventive concept that transforms\u00a0the natural phenomena of MPO being associated with\u00a0cardiovascular risk into a patentable invention.<\/p>\n

On the issue of contributory infringement, the Federal Circuit said that\u00a0a party that provides a service,\u00a0but no \u201cmaterial or apparatus,\u201d cannot be liable for contributory\u00a0infringement. \u00a0Because the defendant was merely providing testing services, the Federal Circuit agreed that the claim should be dismissed. \u00a0On the issue of inducement, the Federal Circuit observed that the mere knowledge of possible infringement\u00a0by others does not amount to inducement; and that specific intent\u00a0and action to induce infringement must be proven. The Federal Circuit found that merely providing test reports to physicians falls short of showing the specific intent and action\u00a0to induce infringement of the \u2019260 patent.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In the Cleveland Clinic Foundation v. True Health Diagnostics LLC, [2016-1766](June 16, 2017), the Federal Circuit affirmed that the asserted claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,223,552,\u00a07,459,286, and 8,349,581 are not\u00a0directed to patent-eligible subject matter, and that Cleveland\u00a0Clinic failed to state … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[15,58,27],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1600","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-15","category-contributory-infringement","category-inducement"],"post_mailing_queue_ids":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1600","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1600"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1600\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1602,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1600\/revisions\/1602"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1600"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1600"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1600"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}