Direct Infringement

News & Analysis as of

After the Supreme Court's Limelight Decision, Attention May Shift to Contract Analysis in Patent Cases

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

Examining the Impact of the Supreme Court's Limelight v. Akamai Decision [Video]

Gaby L. Longsworth, Ph.D., director at the intellectual property law firm Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox, discusses the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc. She...more

IP Buzz - June 2014

In this issue: - Patent Reform: It's Alive! - Nautilus: New Test, Same Application? - Supreme Court Opens Door to Food and Beverage Label Challenges Under Lanham Act - Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank:...more

Supreme Court Corner - Q2 2014

Octane Fitness, LLC v. Icon Health & Fitness, Inc. - Patent: Decided: April 29, 2014 - Holding: A patent case is “exceptional” under 35 U.S.C. § 285 when it “stands out from others with respect to the...more

Intellectual Property Alert: U.S. Supreme Court Rules in ABC v. Aereo

On June 26, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court decided American Broadcasting Companies, et al. v. Aereo. The 6-3 ruling holds that Aereo’s business model of streaming live broadcast television content over the Internet to its...more

In Limelight, Supreme Court Rejects Inducement Liability Without a Direct Infringer

The U.S. Supreme Court, in Limelight v. Akamai, recently reversed a Federal Circuit decision holding Limelight Networks liable for inducing patent infringement. The Supreme Court ruled that a party cannot be held liable for...more

Supreme Court Reverses Federal Circuit on Two Key Patent Issues

On June 2, 2014, the Supreme Court decided two closely-watched patent cases, unanimously reversing the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and making it easier to defend some claims of patent infringement....more

Supreme Court Leads the Way in Patent Litigation Reform

On June 2, the United States Supreme Court issued a pair of unanimous decisions in closely watched patent cases, both of which will make it harder to maintain a claim for patent infringement. In Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig...more

Supreme Court Reverses Federal Circuit on Inducement of Infringement

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday limited the instances in which a party might be liable for inducing patent infringement. In a decision titled Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc., the Court held that a party...more

U.S. Supreme Court Says Induced Infringement Requires Direct Infringement, But Leaves Direct Infringement Standard to Federal...

In a decision dated June 2, 2014, in the case Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc. (No. 12-786), the U.S. Supreme Court held that a defendant is not liable for induced patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. §...more

Post Limelight v. Akamai, Are Multi-actor Method Patent Claims D.O.A.?

The Supreme Court’s decision in Limelight v. Akamai yesterday requires a single actor, direct infringer to exist as a prerequisite to any finding of direct or indirect infringement. This decision, in view of the Federal...more

The U.S. Supreme Court Rules On Induced Infringement

On June 2, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Limelight Networks Inc. v. Akamai Technologies Inc. et al., holding that to prevail on a theory of patent inducement one party must be responsible for performing...more

The U.S. Supreme Court Finds No Liability for Induced Infringement Without Direct Infringement

On June 2, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc. et al., holding that a defendant may not be liable for induced infringement of a patent under 35 U.S.C. §...more

It Takes One to Infringe: Akamai Ruling Holds That Induced Infringement Requires Direct Infringement by a Single Party

On June 2, 2014, a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court held in Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc. that direct infringement by a single party is a prerequisite to a finding of induced infringement. In doing so, the...more

Supreme Court Limits Scope of Induced Infringement

In Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Techs., Inc. (U.S., No. 13-369), the Supreme Court held that a defendant cannot be liable for induced patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) in the absence of an underlying direct...more

Use of Competitor’s Trademark As Trigger for Sponsored Ad is Not Trademark Infringement According to Tenth Circuit

Despite years of litigation over keyword advertising, very few courts have reached the important question whether the use of a trademark solely as a trigger for an advertisement is likely to cause confusion. Last week, in a...more

IP Update, Vol. 16, No. 2, -- February 2013

In This Issue: Patents - Supreme Court: State Court Has Jurisdiction over a Legal Malpractice Claim; Nothing Non-Obvious About Applying Pre-Existing Technology to the Internet; The Federal Circuit Is Not the...more

January 2013: Patent Litigation Update

In This Update: European Parliament Approves European Unitary Patent and Unified Patent Court; Gross Negligence Insufficient to Establish Deceptive Intent for Inequitable Conduct; and Federal Circuit Eases Requirements...more

Federal Circuit Review - Volume 2 | Issue 12 December 2012

In This Issue: • Indexing Not Required for Online Prior Art Publication • Claim Indefinite for Not Disclosing Any Structure • Aluminum Not Inherently Disclosed - Excerpt from Claim Indexing Not Required...more

19 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 1