The court ( 2-1 ) reiterated the prior Federal Circuit rule as to divided infringement : there must be " a principal-agent relationship, a contractual relationship, or in circumstances in which parties work together in a joint enterprise functioning as a form of mutual agency . " One judge dissented, arguing that the majority ruling " divorces patent law from mainstream legal principles by refusing to accept that ?271 ( a ) includes joint tortfeasor liability " and it " creates a gaping hole in what for centuries has been recognized as an actionable form of infringement ."
12.
Whether by virtue of their actual or ostensible authority as agents acting within their authority ( see " Lloyd v Grace, Smith & Co . " [ 1912 ] AC 716 ) or as employees acting in the course of their employment ( see " Armagas Limited v Mundogas S . A . " [ 1986 ] 1 AC 717 ), their acts and omissions and their knowledge could be attributed to the company, and this could give rise to liability as joint tortfeasors where the directors have assumed responsibility on their own behalf and not just on behalf of the company.
