2. Womble Carlyle presentations are intended to provide general information about significant legal developments and should not be construed as legal advice regarding any specific facts and circumstances, nor should they be construed as advertisements for legal services. DISCLAIMER

16. On Demand Mach. Corp. v. Ingram Indus., Inc., 442 F.3d 1331, 1344-45 (Fed. Cir. 2006) “ It is not necessary for the acts that constitute infringement to be performed by one person or entity. When infringement results from the participation and combined action(s) of more than one person or entity, they are all joint infringers and jointly liable for patent infringement. Infringement of a patented process or method cannot be avoided by having another perform one step of the process or method. Where the infringement is the result of the participation and combined action(s) of one or more persons or entities, they are joint infringers and are jointly liable for the infringement.” CAFC “discerns no flaw” in this jury instruction:

18. Facts in BMC Resources BMC’s patents claim a method for telephonically processing debit transactions without a PIN. Payee or payee’s agent telephonically enters access code, acct. #, debit card #, & payment amount. data Remote Payment (ATM) Network Card-issuing Financial Institution data Paymentech marketed similar system, though parties agreed that Paymentech did not itself perform every step of BMC’s claimed method.

26. Thomson “ [T]he parties do not dispute that no single party performs every step of the asserted claims. For example, at least the inputting step of claim 1 is completed by the bidder, whereas at least a majority of the remaining steps are performed by the auctioneer's system (e.g., Thomson's BidComp/Parity® system).”

29. END