As any reader of our highly informative, yet readable and even witty book Essentials Of Intellectual Property is aware, infringement of a patent may be “direct” or “indirect.” Direct infringement occurs when the accused party “makes, offers to make, sells, offers to sell, uses, or imports” the patented invention.

When a lawsuit has reached the point of name-calling and conspiracy accusations, it takes on the aspect of a sitcom. (Mattel, Inc. et al. v. MGA Entertainment, Inc.)

MGA is – at least for the present time – the owner of the line of BRATZ dolls. Mattel contends that the dolls were created by an MGA employee, Mr. Carter Bryant, at a time when he was still under contract to Mattel. Seeking to enforce its claim to ownership of BRATZ, Mattel sued MGA. The legal battle has now stretched on for seven (7) years.

As any reader of our excellent book, Essentials Of Intellectual Property (just released in its new-and-improved second edition!), is undoubtedly aware, damages in a case of patent infringement may be based upon either the lost profits of the patentee or a reasonable royalty on the infringer’s sales of the infringing goods or services.

Wouldn’t it be great, from a patentee’s perspective, if infringement could be proven without the bother and expense of comparing the asserted patent claims with an accused product? Well, good news patentees; now in some circumstances you can! (Fujitsu Limited, LG Electronics, Inc. and U.S. Philips Corporation v. Netgear Inc.)

Occasionally, the timing of behavior is crucial. (Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor International, Inc. et al.)

If, as the saying goes, a lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client, what can be said about a layman who represents himself in prosecuting a number of lawsuits against alleged infringers of his patent?

Samy Gharb is the inventor of a “Security System With A Mobile Telephone.” Through the services of a respectable IP law firm (Burns, Doane, Swecker & Mathis, LLP), he secured a patent on his invention, which issued in April 2003. So far, so good.

Broadly speaking¹, patent claims may cover either products (article claims) or processes (method claims). Method claims have become increasingly common as inventors seek to patent various methods of conducting business operations, especially conducting business via the internet – the infamous “business method patents.” Infringement of a method claim occurs when each step recited in the claim is performed in the practice of the accused process. Moreover – and an aspect frequently overlooked by both patentees and patent draftspeople,² each step must be performed by the same party.