English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

In a common business arrangement, an American software company designs software in the United States, then sends the software code abroad where copies are mass-produced and distributed. Prior to the Federal Circuit’s ruling in Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. v. St. Jude Medical, Inc., the American company could have been found liable for patent infringement under Section 271(f) of the Patent Act if the software mass-produced abroad infringed a United States patent.Cardiac Pacemakers, however, leaves United States patent owners defenseless when the allegedly infringed patent claims are method claims. The background of Cardiac Pacemakers, the Court’s rationales, and the implications of the decision are the subject of this Note

Is 35 U.S.C. § 271(F) Keeping Pace With The Times?: The Law After the Federal Circuit’s Cardiac Pacemakers Decision