Case Analysis Example: Life Tech versus Promega Corporation

The research discussed is based on a lawsuit of Life Technologies Corporation. Etal. versus Promega Corporation. The petitioner, Life Technologies Corporation has sublicensed the patent known as the Tautz, which claims a genetic toolkit for testing. It is used in making samples of genetic materials that exist in the nucleotide sequences form and combines with the deoxyribonucleic acid molecules (D.N.A). Moreover, they are synthesized to produce multiple copies in a sequence form of nucleotide. The kit is made up of five components. The first part is the mixture of primer and part of D.N.A. The second is the replicated nucleotides for D.N.A strands. The third component is Tap polymerase enzyme. The fourth aspect is the amplifier containing buffer solution, and the final component is the D.N.A control. Tap polymerase is the only component shipped from overseas while the rest are made in their facility. Additionally, the company was given the authority to sell the kit to the other fields licensed by the law worldwide. However, Promega Corporation (Promega) sued Life Tech when they decided to sell the equipment outside the the licensed geographical region. Promega claimed the infringement of liability of the patent under 271 (f) s Act. As a result, it transpired to the lawsuit that outlines the understanding of whether they acted on their jurisdiction in the process of sale and the supply of sublicensed patent overseas for the combination.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

According to the petition, the Jury brought back the ruling to Promega that the law court approved its petition the judgment motion as a fact for law indication ofthe phrase all or a substantial portion did not incorporate delivering of a particular component of the multimodule of the discovery. However, the case was overruled, revised by the court of appeals and reinstated the verdict of the jury by finding Life Tech liable of infringement. Whats more, they argued that the jury did not focus on the component of a single supply outside of the country. However, rather on a substantial portion of the components with the justified arguments and opinions on the matter for discussion, the court upheld the ruling basing on the reasoning that aparticular module cannot establish a significant portion of the discovery.

The rise of the claim was the violation of the patent law by the sublicensed company. Life Tech acted out of the context by selling the patent kit to the fields that were not licensed. In addition, the export of the kit abroad for a combination that violated the patent Act of US law. Likewise, Promega claim is based on the argument of the fact that infringement triggered under the 271(F) (1) of the patent act, prescribes supplying of all or a substantial portion of the component outside the country. The returned verdict by the jury is the accelerator to the rise of the claim. Significantly they granted the petitioner motion as a matter of law for judgment by holding the phrase all or a substantial portion, that did not incorporate the delivery of a multimodule from a distinct component. In the Supreme Court, it was visible that the rise of the fact came up on thegrounds ofgranting a hearing to decide whether to supply a particular component abroad is justified substantial portion that resultsin liability under patent Act. However, the evidence of respondent in the district court shows that at most the products accused of containing one component Tag polymerase, Alternatively, the federal circuit concluded that the definition from the dictionary substantial is the same as important or essential. Therefore, in that regard, a single important component can be a substantial portion of the component. With this in mind, the question is to identify whether the supply violates the act of patent. The threshold for determining if a single component is qualitative or quantitative is a consideration since it must prove to be more than one. Hence it is necessary to follow the procedural history and the background of the case.

The petition of this case followed a lengthy legal procedure for the final decisions made on the ruling. The difference in argument and understanding the content and context is the point of focus to come up with an objective opinion both in the Court and the Supreme Court. At the District Court, the Promega based the argument under the patent act that the phrase substantial portion, denotes measurement of quantity. However, with the little proof that would task the jury, in facts finding and understanding the ruling, it was of less importance and did not give a solution. Similarly, it would, in turn, complicate issues rather than to decipher the review of the fact finder. Further, the history of patent Actsupports the conclusion by the enacted law to fill the gap of the enforcement patent rights. Notably, it is achieved by considering the components that are assembled overseas and manufactured in the country. The law of patent support in case it is adapted for invention use and not as a commodity. However, the activity may be out of the jurisdiction of the courts when all components are made abroad, but a single one is locally produced. In Supreme Court the procedure was the same, though, the scope of the claim was further broadened. The parties disputed the fact that the patent act prohibited against the supply of inventions patented in the country for combination abroad. That is why the verdict was returned for Promega after finding that the patent was violated by Life Tech deliberately.As relevant to this scope, the law court apprehended a party might be responsible for some circumstances for the delivered a particular element from outside the country. Therefore, the court held the phrase substantial portion as a quantitative but not a qualitative which does not further elaborate on the supply of a particular component in an invention.

There are legal issues to be considered for the decision to be made on the case. The first one is the argument by Life Tech on the quantitative approach to identify the component of the substantial portion, which focuses on the number of the components instead of qualitative on whether they are exported or supplied. From the previous Supreme Court ruling on Microsoft is suggest that invention claimed did not describe the involvement in a number of components but rather question if the issue of the software is a component. The second one is the Promega argument that describes the clear difference between provisions of the patent act contrasting with These provisions do not explain the difference between knowing and intending element. That is why the conclusion of majority expressed on active inducement element 271(f) (1).

As a result, the Court heard from both the side on the infringement of the patent and different arguments were made in support of the case. The Promega argument focus on actively induced combination suggested that there is no third party involved. In their expression, the use of the word induce itself suggest persuading. Moreover,itdepicts the concept of bringing out a course as stated in the dictionary. Therefore, had the Congress introduce the limit use of the word to actions that can be separately completed by two different parties, the liability could be assigned. Therefore according to the historical explanation of the legislators, it would be to infringe the patent if one cause or supply a substantial portion of the component when the combination is done within the country. The enactment was done to prevent such misunderstanding in the decision of Supreme Court like on the ruling of Deep south Packing Co.v. Laitram Corp. In this case, Deep South was barred from using the machines in the United States, but eventually, they started producing and exporting to foreign buyers. With this in mind, Life Tech based the argument to actively induce the combination that involvement of the third party is required in the interpretation of the phrase a substantial portion. The Supreme Court uses different language to decide on issues which assume the second party presence as it infringes directly. It is quite natural for the assumption to violate 271 (f) (1) Act subsequently when a single party causes an infringement of a patent. However, since 271 (f) (1) Act do not have a strict liability of companion stature, comparison of 271(b) Act have limited value.

The argument based on the considerable part of the modules of a discovery patented Life Tech contends that with the use of components as the plural form it shows the statute that supplies outside the country must be more than one for 271(f) (1)Act to apply. They, however, ignore the liability of infringement in a situation where a party supply out of the country all or a significant part of the modules of the discovery patented but not elements of the invention. The Life Tech also compare the 271 (f) (1) Act, and (f)(2) Act is signifying that the Congress used components as a plural for subsection (f) (1) and a singular component in (f) (2) reasonably. Nevertheless, the two subsections use the terms in different contexts which do not control the meaning in each context. The focus on infringe under 271(f) (1) describe if one or more components is a party is all or a substantial portion of the component that is patent. While infringement under 271(f) (1) Act explains whether it is supplied by any component that is made or adapted for use.

The analysis that may favor or be against the parties involved depends on their arguments. However, the argument against the decision even though a component may be necessary for the invention, it is difficult to establish a substantial portion of the component patented, unless delivered in the country. Therefore, from the emphasis, it may be correct to say to comprehend the delivered important part of the component by Life Tech to abroad as portion that the accused kits for testing genetics. If the combination occurred in the country, it would not be presumed infringed even though the knowledge is considered necessary.It shows the evidence of infringement under 271(f) (1) Patent Act. Another con is when Life Tech accepted that some of the sales made on the kits infringed technically the Tautz patent. They also admitted that compensation would be given for such case based on the admissions made. It is important in upholding the ruling that a component is necessary under 271(f) (1) Act in the law industry. The court would be profound in getting a multiple of factors which are relevant for understanding more about a considerable part of the patent.

The analysis of the case is more concurring on the history surrounding the enactment of the 271(f) Act. However, the circumstances that are appropriate for the history of legislation relied on are assumed while the most relevant part is ignored by the majority of the analysis. The term actively induced in 271(f)(1) Act was explicitly drawn from the already existing subsection of 271(b).The emphasis focus on the standard principles of the construction of the statutory identical words phrases should normally have the same meaning. It is evident as from a result of the ruling made on powered Corp.v.Reliant Energy Servs. Inc. The expression made by the Congress is based on the Acts where the legal principle needs a special force for construction. Similarly, the focus is on the facts that it is illogical for companies to be heldon liable for the shipment of the components to the third party involved overseas.Additionally, it leads to allowing the companies to ship the same components out of the country to their subsidiaries. The majority also suggest that the Congress did not intend for the result. Significantly, from the attributions made by the legislators, the supposed intent for closing the...