The litigation between Travel Sentry and David Tropp received its third Federal Circuit opinion on December 19, 2017. The opinion sheds further light on the Akamai decisions and reinforces the importance of context in...more
The court’s ruling potentially expands the possible circumstances where the standard could be met. In Travel Sentry v. Tropp, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit expanded the scope of direct infringement under...more
Addressing the issue of divided infringement, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s finding of induced infringement even though no single actor performed all steps of the asserted...more
In Eli Lilly & Co. v. Teva Parenteral Medicines, Inc., the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court decision finding infringement under Akamai of a two-step method of treatment when the prescribing information for the...more
From the nadir of the Supreme Court's allegations that the Federal Circuit "fundamentally misunderstood" the law of inducing infringement in Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc., the nation's specialized...more
On Monday the Supreme Court denied certiorari in Limelight Networks Inc. v. Akamai Technologies Inc. et al, Case No. 15-993. Limelight had petitioned the Court in January, urging for review of the Federal Circuit’s en banc...more
The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals has established a new test for “divided” patent infringement. Direct infringement of a method patent exists when a single party performs all of the steps of the claimed method. 35 U.S.C....more
The Dow Chemical Company v. Nova Chemicals Corporation (No. 2014-1431, -1462, 8/28/15) (Prost, Dyk, Wallach). Dyk, J. Reversing award of supplemental damages. "We hold that the intervening change in the law of...more
SUPREME COURT CASES - The Supreme Court Upholds Prohibition on Charging Royalties After Patent Expiration - In Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment LLC, 576 U.S. ---- (2015), the Supreme Court declined to overrule its 1964...more
If you read one thing... - The Federal Circuit revisited the law of divided infringement under § 271(a) after the Supreme Court remanded the case, noting that the Federal Circuit may have previously been “too narrowly...more
In Akamai Techs. Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., (August 13, 2015 Fed. Cir.) an en banc Federal Circuit unanimously held that direct infringement under Section 271(a) can occur...more
On August 13, 2015, the Federal Circuit in Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc. changed the law regarding liability for direct infringement of a method patent involving more than one actor (divided...more
In an en banc, per curiam decision in Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., on remand from the Supreme Court, the Federal Circuit broadened the circumstances under which a party can be liable for direct...more
The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, on remand from the United States Supreme Court, recently held that certain method claims in a patent owned by Akamai Technologies were infringed by Akamai’s...more
Last week the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals (“Federal Circuit”) “changed the game” for parties, including website and mobile app owners that work in tandem with end users, to practice the steps of a patent. In Akamai...more
On Thursday, August 13, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc. unanimously overruled its prior narrow interpretation of divided infringement....more
Today, the Federal Circuit in an en banc decision in Akamai v. Limelight has taken a step to restore sanity to the law relating to patent infringement where multiple actors perform different steps in a method claim by...more
Following a remand from the Supreme Court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed its prior panel decision, holding that direct infringement liability of a method claim under 271 U.S.C. § 271(a) only...more
1. Background - In 2006, Akamai Technologies ("Akamai") sued Limelight Networks, Inc. ("Limelight") in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,108,703. The...more
In its most recent pronouncement on patent law, the U.S. Supreme Court once again corrected the Federal Circuit’s understanding of induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. §271(b). On May 26, 2015, in Commil USA, LLC v....more
Akamai’s Return to the Federal Circuit - In the latest round of the long-running saga of Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., a Federal Circuit panel on Wednesday reiterated that there is no direct...more
In Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Tech., Inc., the Supreme Court unanimously held that there can be no liability for induced infringement of a patented method where the steps of the method are carried out by separate...more
There's an old saying that "bad facts make bad law," acknowledging that a court's decision regarding an extreme case can result in law that poorly serves less extreme cases. The Supreme Court's recent trio of 35 U.S.C. § 101...more
In its decision of June 2, 2014, in Limelight Networks Inc. v. Akamai Technologies Inc., the United States Supreme Court unanimously reversed an en banc decision of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit which had held...more
In the recent cases OCTANE FITNESS, LLC v. ICON HEALTH & FITNESS, INC. and HIGHMARK INC. v. ALLCARE HEALTH MANAGEMENT SYSTEM, INC., the U.S. Supreme Court empowered district court judges to award attorney fees to prevailing...more