1) Enforcing US business‑method patents against a competitor operating entirely outside the US

Generally no—US patents are territorial. Infringement under 35 U.S.C. §271(a) requires making/using/selling/offering to sell the patented invention within the United States, or importing it into the US.

That said, internet/platform patents can still touch US territory if any infringing “use” occurs in the US. For method claims, courts often look to where the method is performed. If all steps are performed abroad and the service is not used in the US, a US patent typically cannot be enforced.

Key nuance for networked systems:

• For system/apparatus claims, infringement can occur where the system is put into service/controlled and beneficially used (often tied to where users are). If US users access/benefit, that can create US “use.”
• For method claims, infringement usually requires that all steps are performed in the US or that one party is responsible for performance of all steps (see “divided infringement” below).

2) Competitor is US‑based but primarily serves international users

If the competitor has US operations (servers, employees, corporate control) they are exposed to US patent enforcement even if users are abroad.

Typical hooks:

• Method claims: If any steps are performed in the US (e.g., matching, escrow processing, bid evaluation on US servers), that can be infringement. If steps are split between US and foreign actors, liability depends on attribution (see §271(a) divided infringement doctrine) or inducement (§271(b)).
• System claims: Operating the platform from the US can constitute “use” in the US even if many users are overseas, especially if control/benefit is US‑centered.
• Offers to sell / sales: US‑based contracting, pricing, or offering to US customers can trigger §271(a) even if performance/delivery involves foreign users.

3) Mechanisms that can reach foreign operations (limits matter)

A. Importation / ITC (19 U.S.C. §1337)

• The International Trade Commission (ITC) can block importation of infringing articles into the US via exclusion orders (and issue cease‑and‑desist orders against domestic inventory).
• Best fit: physical goods (devices, hardware).
• For web platforms/business methods, ITC leverage is harder unless there is an importable “article” (e.g., software on media, devices, or possibly certain digital products depending on evolving ITC practice). Historically, pure “data flows” are a weak fit.

B. Inducement of infringement (35 U.S.C. §271(b))

• A party can be liable for inducing another’s direct infringement (e.g., instructing US users/customers to perform steps).
• Requires: (1) direct infringement by someone, and (2) intent/knowledge. If no one directly infringes in the US, inducement fails.

C. Contributory infringement (35 U.S.C. §271(c))

• Supplying a component especially made for infringement, with no substantial non‑infringing uses, tied to direct infringement in the US.

D. Divided infringement / attribution (method claims)

• If multiple actors perform different steps, direct infringement can still be found where one party directs or controls the others’ performance (e.g., contractual control, conditioning participation on performing steps, etc.). This can matter for platform workflows involving users + platform.

E. Extraterritorial “supply from the US” (35 U.S.C. §271(f))

• Targets supplying components of a patented invention from the US for assembly abroad.
• Usually relevant to physical components; generally not a clean fit for business‑method web workflows.

F. “Export” of a process (35 U.S.C. §271(g))

• Covers importing into the US products made by a patented process abroad.
• Again, best for manufacturing processes, not typical online marketplace workflows.

G. Damages for foreign activity (limited)

• US courts are cautious about awarding damages for foreign conduct. Some foreign losses can be recoverable if they are the proximate result of domestic infringement (fact‑specific and constrained).

4) Business‑method patentability in major jurisdictions (high level)

EU (EPO)

• “Business methods as such” are excluded, but patents are possible if there is a technical character/technical contribution (e.g., improving computer/network functioning, security, resource usage).
• Pure auction/escrow/matching rules implemented on generic computers are often rejected.

UK

• Similar to EPO: excludes business methods and computer programs as such, but allows inventions with a technical contribution.
• Courts apply a structured “technical contribution” analysis; many pure platform workflow claims fail.

Australia

• After Research Affiliates and RPL Central, Australia tightened patentability for computer‑implemented/business methods.
• Patents generally require a technical improvement or more than mere implementation of an abstract scheme on a computer.

India

• Statutory exclusion: “a mathematical or business method or a computer programme per se” is not patentable.
• In practice, software/business method claims face strong headwinds unless tied to demonstrable technical effect and drafted carefully (and even then uncertain).

China

• Business rules and methods are excluded as such, but China allows software/computer‑implemented inventions if they provide a technical solution to a technical problem with technical effects.
• China is comparatively more open than India to well‑drafted computer‑implemented claims, but “pure” business logic remains difficult.

5) Relevant treaties (what they do—and do not do)

PCT (Patent Cooperation Treaty)

• Simplifies filing internationally (one application, later national/regional phase).
• Does not create a “world patent.” Enforcement remains national.

Paris Convention

• Provides priority rights (file in one country, then others within set time).
• National enforcement only.

TRIPS

• Sets minimum standards for IP protection and non‑discrimination among member states.
• Does not harmonize business‑method patentability in a way that guarantees such patents everywhere, and does not provide cross‑border enforcement of a US patent.

Net: treaties help with procedural filing/standards, not with enforcing a US patent abroad.

6) Practical defenses for a competitor facing international patent threats

A. Challenge validity (especially post‑Alice in the US)

• Alice (2014) makes many business‑method/software claims vulnerable under 35 U.S.C. §101 (abstract idea + generic computer implementation).
• Common outcomes: claims to escrow, bidding, intermediated settlement, matching, and workflow automation are often invalid unless they recite a specific technical improvement (not just “do it on a server”).
• Tools: IPR (inter partes review) at the PTAB (typically for novelty/obviousness), PGR (for newer patents; can include §101), ex parte reexam, and district court invalidity defenses.

B. Non‑infringement via architecture / geofencing

• Keep all method steps outside the US; avoid US users; geoblock; keep servers and operational control offshore.
• Design to avoid “direction or control” over US actors performing steps.
• Modify workflow to avoid one or more claim elements.

C. Jurisdictional and remedial limits

• If no US acts of infringement, US courts generally cannot reach purely foreign conduct.
• Even when there is US infringement, damages for foreign activity may be limited.

D. Seek freedom‑to‑operate abroad

• If the patent holder lacks corresponding patents in EU/UK/China/etc., they generally cannot enforce the US patent there. Require them to identify local patent rights.

E. Prior art / obviousness

• Many marketplace workflows have extensive prior art (academic papers, early web platforms, standards). Strong basis for §102/§103 attacks in the US and analogous attacks abroad.

F. Licensing / settlement leverage

• If the patent is weak under Alice, the competitor can often negotiate from strength; conversely, if there’s strong US exposure (US servers/users), settlement may be pragmatic.

---

Bottom line

• US patents don’t directly bite foreign‑only operations, but internet services can create US infringement if users, servers, control, or key steps are in the US.
• The main “reach” tools (ITC/importation, inducement, divided infringement) still usually require a US nexus and often a direct infringer in the US.
• Outside the US, business‑method patentability is generally narrow and requires a technical contribution/technical effect; pure marketplace workflows are often not patentable.
• Post‑Alice, many US business‑method patents are fragile, making validity challenges and US‑nexus avoidance the most practical defenses.