方法特許 米国外における特許責任の制限

CAFC（大法廷）米国外における特許責任を制限
8月19日（水）、CAFC大法廷は、35 U.S.C. § 271(f) は方法クレームには適用しないと判示した。この判決は最高裁判所によるMicrosoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp., 550 U.S. 437 (2007)　判決に従うものであり、先に物議をかもしたCAFCによるUnion Carbide v. Shell Oil Co., 425 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (271(f) is directed to “every component of every form of invention” and that the statute is “not limited to physical machines.”)　判決を覆すものである。
この判決によりCAFCは、特許の属地的制限は簡単に反故されるべきものではないとの指針を示した。

(Law.com)
An en banc ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has narrowed the reach of U.S. patent laws covering companies' overseas sales and production.
The Wednesday decision in the closely watched Cardiac Pacemakers Inc. v. St. Jude Medical Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2009) determined that patents for methods or processes are not subject to patent infringement liability if the products are assembled and sold overseas. Patents for products, however, are not exempt.

(PatentlyO)
In an en banc decision, the Federal Circuit has ruled that 35 U.S.C. § 271(f) "does not cover method claims." This decision overturns the controversial 2005 decision in Union Carbide v. Shell Oil Co., 425 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2005). The ruling was widely expected based on the Supreme Court's 2007 decision in Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp., 550 U.S. 437 (2007) (holding that "master disks" were not a 271(f) "component" when abroad to be copied and then installed to form a would-be infringing system). In reading Microsoft v. AT&T, the Federal Circuit found "a clear message that the territorial limits of patents should not be lightly breached."