Indirect Infringement

News & Analysis as of

IP Law Tracker Docket Review

Each month, we review significant intellectual property decisions from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and the U.S. District Courts for the Eastern District and Western District of Michigan. Below is the...more

June Court Decision Round-Up

JDS Technologies, Inc. v. Avigilon USA Corp., Case No. 15-10385, 2015 WL 3603525 (E.D. Mich. June 5, 2015) - U.S. District Judge Avern Cohn denied Avigilon’s motion to dismiss for failing to adequately plead allegations...more

Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2015)

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

Akamai Reversed - Liability for Inducing Infringement Requires Proof of Direct Infringement by One Person

The United States Supreme Court in its opinion Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc., 572 U. S. ____; Slip Op. No. 12–786 (June 2, 2014) (“Akamai”) holds that there cannot be liability for inducing...more

U.S. Supreme Court Further Clarifies Indirect Infringement Standards

The Supreme Court in the last several years has taken an activist approach to the area of patent law, granting certiorari in many more cases than in prior years and often reversing the Federal Circuit. If there was one theme...more

Federal Circuit Finds No Direct Infringement Where Limelight's Customer—and Not Limelight—Performs Required Step of Method Claim

On May 13, 2015, a divided Federal Circuit held that Limelight did not infringe Akamai's asserted method claim because Limelight did not perform all steps of the asserted method claims, and because there was no foundation on...more

Direct Infringement Has Its Turn in the Limelight

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

Navigating Patent Damages Part II: How Infringement Allegations Can Impact or Limit Potential Damages

Previously, we discussed the implications of the failure to mark defense on damages prior to the filing of a patent case. In this next article in the series, we examine how allegations of direct and/or indirect infringement,...more

Indirect Patent Infringement in the US

In a recent decision in the US (Riverbed Technology, Inc. v. Silver Peak Systems, Inc.), a company was found liable for indirect patent infringement even though the infringing features of its product were disabled when the...more

Business Litigation Report -- September 2014

In This Issue: - Main Article: ..The Supreme Court Revisits Patent Eligible Subject Matter in Alice v. CLS Bank - Practice Area Notes: ..International Arbitration Update ..Trial Practice...more

District Court Grants Motion to Reconsider Summary Judgment Motion after Supreme Court's Decision in Limelight v. Akamai

In this patent infringement action, FedEx moved for reconsideration after the district court had denied its motion for summary judgment regarding the plaintiff's claim for inducing patent infringement. FedEx moved for...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

Does the Filing on an IPR Negate the Intent Element for an Indirect Patent Infringement Action? One District Court Says No.

Clouding IP ("Clouding") filed a patent infringement action against Rackspace, which alleged direct, indirect, and willful infringement of the patents-in-suit. The district court granted defendant Rackspace's motion to...more

Federal Circuit Review - December 2013

Apple Awarded Permanent Injunction - In Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Appeal No. 13-1129, the Federal Circuit vacated denial of a permanent injunction with respect to Apple’s utility patents and affirmed denial...more

Australia’s Highest Court Takes A Knife To Indirect Infringement: “Carve-Outs” In Product Information Leaflets Are A Legitimate...

Under Australian law, indirect or contributory infringement of method of treatment claims has been an issue for quite some time. In particular, there have been a number of injunctions granted in circumstances where an...more

Landmark Decision Limits the Authority of the International Trade Commission

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Suprema, Inc., et al. v. International Trade Commission, Nos. 2012-1170, 2012-1026, -1124, Slip Op. December 13, 2013, issued a landmark decision limiting the...more

Patent Watch: Aristocrat Techs. Austl. Pty Ltd. v. Int' Game Tech.

On March 13, 2013, in Aristocrat Techs. Austl. Pty Ltd. v. Int' Game Tech., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (O'Malley,* Bryson, Linn) affirmed-in-part, vacated-in-part and remanded the district court's...more

Federal Circuit Expands Liability for Induced Infringement of Method Patents

Patent law holds that a party can be held liable for direct infringement when that party performs all steps of a patent claim. In contrast, there is no direct infringement where multiple parties collectively – but...more

18 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 1

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:

Sign up to create your digest using LinkedIn*

*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.
×