Fujitsu Ltd. v. Netgear

By: Jason Rantanen

Fujitsu Ltd. v. Netgear (Fed. Cir. 2010)
Panel: Lourie, Friedman, and Moore (author)

Indirect infringement claims are particularly relevant in the context of industry-wide interoperablity standards, because frequently companies simply manufacture products capable of particular behavior while the relevant methods are actually carried out by end users.  Patent No. 4,974,952 raises an example of this issue.  The '952 patent claims a method of sending wireless messages involving fragmenting the messages in a particular manner.  Philips, the patent holder, contended that any product that complied with certain sections of the IEEE 802.11 standard infringed the asserted claims, and that by complying with the standard Netgear indirectly infringed the '952 patent (presumably by selling the accused products).

The district court granted summary judgment of noninfringement in favor of Netgear, determining that Phillips had failed to establish either contributory infringement or inducement.  On appeal, the Federal Circuit determined that the district court had erred on some points, but nevertheless affirmed summary judgment of noninfringment with respect to all but four products. 

Use of Standards to establish Direct Infringement: The court's discussion of the use of industry-wide standards to prove infringement may become the most widely-cited portion of this opinion.  After considering the parties' arguments, along with that of amicus Association of Corporate Counsel Intellectual Property Committee, the court held that:

[A] district court may rely on an industry standard in analyzing infringement. If a district court construes the claims and finds that the reach of the claims includes any device that practices a standard, then this can be sufficient for a finding of infringement. We agree that claims should be compared to the accused product to determine infringement. However, if an accused product operates in accordance with a standard, then comparing the claims to that standard is the same as comparing the claims to the accused product….An accused infringer is free to either prove that the claims do not cover all implementations of the standard or to prove that it does not practice the standard.

We acknowledge, however, that in many instances, an industry standard does not provide the level of specificity required to establish that practicing that standard would always result in infringement. Or, as with the ’952 patent, the relevant section of the standard is optional, and standards compliance alone would not establish that the accused infringer chooses to implement the optional section. In these instances, it is not sufficient for the patent owner to establish infringement by arguing that the product admittedly practices the standard, therefore it infringes. In these cases, the patent owner must compare the claims to the accused products or, if appropriate, prove that the accused products implement any relevant optional sections of the standard.

Slip Op. at 8-9. Applying this holding, the panel concluded that because the fragmentation feature in the 802.11 standard was optional, and (although present in the Netgear devices) was turned off by default, Phillips was required to prove that customers actually used the infringing feature. On this point, the Federal Circuit agreed with the district court that there was only evidence of actual infringing use with respect to four products.

Substantial Noninfringing Uses: The Federal Circuit applied the analysis of i4i v. Microsoft, focusing on the specific feature at issue.  Here, because the specific feature was infringing when it was activated, there was no substantial noninfringing use.

Material Part of the Invention: Phillips accused two classes of products: those that only fragmented messages and those that only defragmented messages.  Because the claims of the '952 patent were specifically drawn to the fragmenting steps, not the defragmenting steps, the district court concluded that the accused defragmenting products could not infringe.  Phillips argued that because fragmentation necessarily infringes the asserted claims, than the defragmenting products are useful only for infringement, and Netgear should be liable for them.  The panel rejected this argument: even though the usefulness of the claimed method would be lost without data receivers capable of defragmenting messages, the lack of defragmentation steps in the claims means that products that only defragment messages cannot constitute a "material part" of the invention. 

Mental State Components of Indirect Infringement: In analyzing the respective mental state components for contributory infringement and inducement of infringement, the panel found that Netgear's receipt of letters identifying the '952 patent and alleging infringement by any 802.11 compliant standard were sufficient to survive summary judgment.

Comment: my current research focuses on mental state issues in patent law, including in the context of indirect infringement.  In the near future, I'll discuss this subject in more depth. 

Other issues: In addition to the above indirect infringement issues, the Federal Circuit also concluded that the district court had erred in limiting damages based on the patent marking statute (35 U.S.C. § 287), because the claims covered a method and § 287 does not apply where the patent is directed to a process or method.  The Federal Circuit also analyzed the district's construction of relevant claim terms in Patent Nos. 6,018,642 and 6,469,993, and affirmed its grant of summary judgment of noninfringement of those patents.  The analysis in this section may be particularly relevant to those operating in the wireless technology area.

Follow-up comment: Michael Barclay also noted the importance of the standard-as-evidence holding on his blog, IPDuck.  See

16 thoughts on “Fujitsu Ltd. v. Netgear

  1. 14

    Haven’t I been set free? A Petition to tie me up again, isn’t that illegal? LOL…, that didn’t stop anyone before.
    I say something 9:19 this morning at 9:30 someone says a petition was filed on . Why wasn’t it on Yesterdays web page?
    Don’t worry though I can connect so many dots PING.

  2. 13

    …or no standards at all. Hurry, Hurry, Hurry, throw your patent rights away now…

    I do like the immediacy of the (C)onstitutional problem though.

  3. 12

    Congress should enact laws so that if a claim of a patent covers an “industry standard” the patentee’s relief is limited to a reasonable royalty set by the government

    I can see that resulting in a lot of new and highly-detailed standards.

  4. 11

    Congress should enact laws so that if a claim of a patent covers an “industry standard” the patentee’s relief is limited to a reasonable royalty set by the government or the federal government should just take the patent by imminent domain and compensate the patentee. The Taking may present a constitutional problem.

  5. 9

    There are actually lots of errors in this opinion. For example:
    “As an initial matter, Netgear asks us to find no evi-dence of direct infringement because the district court relied on the WMM Specification (i.e., § 9.4)”

    It’s actually the IEEE Standard Sec. 9.4 that discusses fragmentation.

  6. 6

    Am I missing something or did the opinion incorrectly refer to the first patent as 4,974,952?

    4,974,952 is titled “Live Cell Chamber for Microscopes”

  7. 4

    Sometards on this site need to read this article about persuasion.

    You did a really fantastic job with that post, 6. I’m sure you’ll do even better next time.

  8. 3


    That’s a chick article. And it is incredibly wrong. Half those moves are so obvious and pi ss off any guy with intelligence who can see straight through to the manipulation.

    Ya gotta lot to learn about persuasion.

  9. 1

    Contributory infringement requires knowledge of infringement, and this was a problem with the plaintiffs in this case who had licensed patents to a patent pool that “were essential” in practicing the standard. However, the essential patents were not specifically identified. Had they listed the patents and perhaps the areas they covered, perhaps there would have been less controversy about whether or not the defendant, who used the standard, would have known of the infringement by complying with the standard.

Comments are closed.