|Method Patent Requires Duplication of Every Step of Method to Be Infringement|
|Description||Federal circuit held that a system that performed the same process as a process covered by a method patent did not infringe because the steps performed by the non-patented system varied from the steps in the method patent.|
|Key Words||Patents; Method; Infringement|
|C A S E S U M M A R Y|
BMC has patents that claim a method for processing debit transactions without a PIN number, called PIN-less debit pill payment (PDBP). It does so by combining the action of several participants, including the payee’s agent (such as BMC), a remote payment network (such as an ATM), and the card-issuing financial institution. It uses a process called interactive voice response (IVR). Paymentech processes financial transactions for clients using a PDBP that also uses an IVR. BMC claimed that Paymentech’s process infringed on its patents and demanded royalties. Paymentech refused and sued seeking a declaration of non-infringement. BMC then sued for infringement. The district court held there was no infringement. BMC appealed.
Affirmed. BMC’s patents are called method patents. They require a series of specific steps to be performed. Paymentech’s system did not perform or cause to be performed every step of patented method for processing debit transactions without a PIN that BMC’s system did. Duplication of the method would be required to find direct patent infringement. Such infringement is a strict-liability offense, but it is limited to those who practice each and every element of the claimed invention.
|Citation||BMC Resources, Inc. v. Paymentech, L.P., 498 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir., 2007)|
Back to Intellectual Property Listings
©1997-2008 South-Western Legal Studies in Business. All Rights Reserved.