Month: April 2014

Direct vs. Indirect Patent Infringement

Direct Infringement

A patent is directly infringed by “whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells” the patented invention.[1] In this situation the patent is considered “directly” infringed because the party that actually committed the infringement is the party that is liable. Direct infringement is a strict liability offense, and therefore liability depends only on whether the actions necessary for infringement have occurred.[2] Even if an infringer was unaware the infringed patent existed and otherwise did not intend to infringe the patent, the infringer is still liable. (more…)

A summary of the state of restrictive employment covenants in California

Employee mobility can be a thorny issue for companies of all sizes and employees of all pay grades.  In California, this issue is especially challenging given the state’s strong policy against non-compete agreements.  Simply put, compared to some other states, there is little a California employer can do to prevent an employee from leaving for another company, even if that company is a direct competitor. Section 16600 of California’s Business and Professions Code states that “every contract by which anyone is restrained from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind is to that extent void.”  The California Supreme Court, in its 2008 decision in Edwards v. Arthur Andersen, made clear that the statute prohibits a range of restrictive post-employment agreements, not just traditional non-compete agreements, which prohibit ex-employees from competing with their former employer for a limited period of time and in a limited geographic area.  So where does that leave California employers? (more…)