Process patents present a distinctive enforcement problem. Unlike product patents, where the allegedly infringing article can be examined directly, process patents protect methods of manufacture that occur behind closed factory doors. When a defendant employs manufacturing techniques that differ from the patented process in some steps but not others, proving infringement becomes an exercise in evidentiary strategy as much as substantive law. This article examines the burden-shifting frameworks that courts have developed to address these challenges.
The Statutory Framework: 35 U.S.C. § 295
Congress enacted Section 295 to address the particular difficulty of proving process patent infringement. The statute provides that if the patented process produces a novel or non-obvious product, and the plaintiff establishes a substantial likelihood that the product was made by the patented process, the burden shifts to the defendant to prove that its product was not made by that process. The legislative history reflects Congress's recognition that process patent holders faced an asymmetric disadvantage: the very information needed to prove infringement was exclusively within the defendant's control.
The judicial interpretation of Section 295 from its enactment through subsequent Federal Circuit decisions reveals three unresolved questions. First, what quantum of evidence establishes a "substantial likelihood" sufficient to trigger the burden shift? Second, does the statute apply when the defendant's product is similar but not identical to the product of the patented process? Third, how should courts treat cases where the defendant uses some steps of the patented process but substitutes alternatives for others?
Inconsistent Manufacturing and the Doctrine of Equivalents
The doctrine of equivalents permits a finding of infringement when a defendant's process, while not literally identical to the patented method, performs substantially the same function in substantially the same way to achieve substantially the same result. In cases involving inconsistent manufacturing techniques, the analysis becomes element-by-element: each step of the patented process is compared with the corresponding step in the defendant's method.
This element-by-element approach creates problems when the defendant's process reorganizes, combines, or subdivides steps rather than simply substituting equivalent alternatives. The Federal Circuit's treatment of these cases has produced results that are difficult to reconcile. The tension between Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co., which required element-by-element comparison, and subsequent decisions that have struggled to apply this framework to processes that differ structurally from the patented method remains a source of uncertainty for practitioners and courts alike.
Damages and Apportionment
Even after infringement is established, damages calculation in process patent cases presents its own challenges. The difficulty lies in isolating the economic contribution of the patented process steps from the non-infringing elements of the defendant's manufacturing operation. When a defendant uses inconsistent techniques that partially overlap with the patented method, the question of apportionment becomes central.
Two approaches to this problem merit examination. The analytical approach attempts to calculate the value added by each process step, attributing damages only to the infringing steps. The entire market value rule, by contrast, permits damages based on the full value of the defendant's product when the patented process is the basis for consumer demand. Neither approach adequately addresses cases where the patented steps and the defendant's modifications interact to produce a product whose value cannot be cleanly divided between infringing and non-infringing contributions.
Evidentiary Asymmetry and Discovery
The practical challenge of process patent litigation extends beyond substantive doctrine into procedure. Manufacturing processes are typically trade secrets, shielded from public view and from competitors. A patentee who suspects infringement must often initiate litigation based on circumstantial evidence—the similarity of the defendant's product to the product of the patented process, expert testimony about the likely method of manufacture, or information gleaned from former employees or industry publications.
Discovery rules provide a mechanism for obtaining the defendant's process information, but courts must balance the patentee's need for evidence against the defendant's legitimate interest in protecting confidential manufacturing methods. Protective orders and attorneys'-eyes-only designations address some of these concerns, but they introduce their own complications, particularly when the patentee's technical experts are also competitors of the defendant.
The procedural challenges of proving process patent infringement intersect with broader questions about information asymmetry in patent litigation, a theme explored in the journal's work on IP privateering and the evidentiary complexities of e-discovery in cloud computing.
Related articles: 3D Printing and Patent Law · Pharmaceutical Patents · Trade Secrets and Cybersecurity
Frequently Asked Questions
What is burden shifting in patent infringement cases?
Burden shifting in patent cases occurs when the plaintiff establishes a prima facie case of infringement, transferring the burden of production to the defendant to demonstrate that its manufacturing process does not infringe. Under 35 U.S.C. Section 295, this framework applies specifically to process patents where the patented process produces a novel product.
How does the doctrine of equivalents apply to manufacturing process patents?
The doctrine of equivalents permits a finding of infringement when a defendant's process performs substantially the same function in substantially the same way to achieve substantially the same result as the patented process. In cases involving inconsistent manufacturing techniques, courts evaluate whether variations in individual process steps are substantial enough to avoid infringement or merely insubstantial substitutions.
What challenges exist in proving damages for process patent infringement?
Damages calculation in process patent cases is complicated by the difficulty of isolating the contribution of the patented process to the value of the final product. When defendants use inconsistent techniques that partially overlap with the patented method, courts must determine which portion of profits or reasonable royalties are attributable to the infringing steps versus non-infringing modifications.