Warning

Info

Warning

Info

Warning

Info

LSDefine

Simple English definitions for legal terms

contributory infringement

Read a random definition: permanent abode

A quick definition of contributory infringement:

Contributory infringement is when someone is held responsible for infringing on a patent, copyright, or trademark, even if they didn't directly do it themselves. For patents, this means selling or importing a component that is specifically made for infringing on the patent. For copyrights, it means knowingly helping someone else infringe on the copyright. For trademarks, it means intentionally encouraging or continuing to supply a product to someone who is infringing on the trademark. The person being accused of contributory infringement must have known about the infringement and the product must not have any other non-infringing use.

A more thorough explanation:

Contributory infringement is a type of secondary liability for direct infringement of a patent, copyright, or trademark. It means that a person can be held responsible for infringement even if they did not directly engage in infringing activities.

For patents, contributory infringement is defined by 35 U.S.C. § 271(c). It states that a person who sells or imports a component of a patented invention, knowing that it is made or adapted for use in infringing the patent, can be held liable as a contributory infringer. However, the alleged infringing article or commodity must be unsuitable for any commercial non-infringing use.

For example, if a company sells a part that is specifically designed to be used in an infringing way, they can be held liable for contributory infringement. However, if the part has other lawful uses, they cannot be held liable.

Unlike patents, the Copyright Act does not explicitly impose liability for contributory infringement. However, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that a person who knowingly induces, causes, or materially contributes to copyright infringement by another can be held liable as a contributory infringer if they had knowledge or reason to know of the infringement.

For example, if a website provides a platform for users to share copyrighted material illegally, and the website owners know about it but do nothing to stop it, they can be held liable for contributory infringement.

Similarly to copyright, the Lanham Act does not expressly impose liability for contributory infringement. However, the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that liability for trademark infringement can extend beyond those who actually mislabel goods with the mark of another.

For example, if a company knowingly supplies its product to someone who is engaging in trademark infringement, they can be held liable for contributory infringement.

Overall, contributory infringement is a way to hold people accountable for indirect involvement in infringing activities. It requires knowledge or reason to know of the infringement and that the alleged infringing article or commodity is unsuitable for any commercial non-infringing use.

contribution | contributory negligence

Warning

Info

General

General chat about the legal profession.
main_chatroom
👍 Chat vibe: 0 👎
Help us make LSD better!
Tell us what's important to you
Congrats1!
21:15
Miami A, yall I'm so excited I could cry.
21:15
Feel like I can finally stop holding my breath!! Whew!!!
[] baddestbunny
22:16
every time I get accosted by a strange man who follows me around because my male coworkers were too busy talking to walk me back to my car I get closer to saying we need to bring back traditional gender roles
Dkk
22:32
Nice! @Macaque
Dkk
22:32
@Aromatic, Have to guess.
Dkk
22:33
That sucks @Bunny do you have to go to the hospital?
[] baddestbunny
22:40
I said accosted not assaulted
23:35
guys. my notre dame address just went long is this good or bad
1a2b3c4d26z
23:37
Oooooo me too
23:37
omg is this good or bad
Dkk
23:47
Idk if gender roles are gunna fix that then.
23:49
it looks like most people who applied in october last cycle didn't get a decision until january... does it even mean anything that our addresses went long??
hows ED 2 compared to ED 1?
Dkk
0:10
No idea
windyMagician
0:34
reporting live to say my ndls address also went long
does it mean anything ^
Dkk
2:21
NDLS and Fordham took a very long time last year. It's good info for people to know.
[] baddestbunny
4:29
let’s get after it boys and girls
Dkk
5:21
I gtg to bed soon.
Dkk
5:22
Big day today. Gunna be a crazy one. I will sleep through the first half.
good morning lsd it is 5 am EST
also jazzy my ndls address went long ages ago i sadly do not think it means anything
my stanford address also went long LOL i think at most it's an indicator it's under review
WorthlessAttractiveZombie
7:44
My berkeley paragraph finally disappeared. I definitely think it is just an indicator that they are actively reviewing files, and does not mean anything about A, WL, or Rs
WorthlessAttractiveZombie
7:46
Also has anyone's date disappeared for W&L? Mine did last night
7:55
@WorthlessAttractiveZombie: mine did yesterday morning
7:56
Oops sorry I meant Vilanova. Mine disappeared last week
soapy
8:48
UMN under review! As predicted, decisions are gonna come out early December
Minus those random R decisions from UMN yesterday though right? I wonder what happened there. I don’t think I’ve seen a school start the season out with anything but As on here
LSD+ is ad-free, with DMs, discounts, case briefs & more.