[i] Deepsouth Packing Co. v. Laitram Corp., 406 U.S. 518, 520-24 (1972).
[ii] “Whoever without authority imports into the United States or offers to sell, sells, or uses within the United States a product which is made by a process patented in the United States shall be liable as an infringer, if the importation, offer to sell, sale, or use of the product occurs during the term of such process patent.” 35 U.S.C § 271(g).
[iii] In U.S. patent law, a method, also called “process”, is one of the four principal categories of things that may be patented, through “utility patents”. The other three are a machine, an article of manufacture, and a composition of matter. In this Comment, the terms “method” and “process” are used interchangeably.
[iv] Bayer AG v. Housey Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 340 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
[v] Timothy R. Holdbrook, Extraterritoriality in U.S. Patent Law, 49 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 2119, 2140-41 (2008).
[vi] See, e.g., Matthew Barthalow, Bayer AG v. Housey Pharmaceuticals: Protection for Biotechnological Research Tools Under Section 271(g) Found Wanting, Pierce Law Review (2005).
[vii] NTP, Inc. v. Research in Motion, Ltd., 418 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
[viii] Realtime Data, LLC d/b/a IXO v. Morgan Stanley, et al., Case No. 11 Civ. 6696 (KBF).
[ix] “[W]hoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States or imports into the United States any patented invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent.” 35 U.S.C. § 271(a).
[x] Brian D. Coggio & Eric Brandon Fugett, Strategies to Strengthen Your Patent: a Novel Claim-drafting Approach. Fish & Richardson, http://www.fr.com/Strategies-to-strengthen-your-paten/.
[xi] IPXL Holdings v. Amazon.com, 430 F.3d 1377, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
[xii] Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp., 550 U.S. 437 (2007).
[xiii] CNET Networks, Inc. v. Etilize, Inc., 528 F.Supp.2d 985, 987 (N.D. Cal. 2007).
[xiv] Ormco Corp. v. Align Tech., Inc. 609 F.Supp.2d 1057 (C.D. Cal. 2009).
[xv] U.S. Patent No. 7,082,426, Claim 1.
[xvi] Yangaroo Inc. v. Destiny Media Tech. Inc., 720 F.Supp.2d 1034 (E.D. Wis. 2010).