Examining the Impact of the Supreme Court's Limelight v. Akamai Decision
The U.S. Supreme Court heard a landmark number of intellectual property cases during its 2013-2014 term. Below is a summary of recent decisions issued in 2014....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
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
The Supreme Court may be making up for where Congress has left off. Legislation designed to curb abuse from patent assertion entities, or so-called patent trolls, has been shelved indefinitely. The legislation passed the...more
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
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
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
In the long-awaited decision in Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Techs., Inc., the Supreme Court once again reversed the Federal Circuit. This time, the Court's reversal involved the issue of indirect infringement....more
The U.S. Supreme Court, in Nautilus v. Biosig, recently reversed a Federal Circuit ruling that a patent is valid as long as the description of what it claims is not “insolubly ambiguous.” The Supreme Court’s decision, which...more
For over a decade, to show that a claim term is invalid as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. §112, ¶2, the Federal Circuit has required that such terms be "not amenable to construction" or "insolubly ambiguous." The Supreme Court in...more
Ruling unanimously twice in one day, the Supreme Court of the United States has issued two significant patent decisions that will significantly impact patent litigation in the future.
In a continuing a pattern that has seemingly developed over the past several years, the Supreme Court recently overturned two more Federal Circuit decisions relating to key aspects of patent law.
In the first case, Nautilus...more
In a recent decision likely to significantly impact patent holders reliant on method-type claims, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc. that induced infringement...more
Suprema, Inc. v. International Trade Commission -
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has granted en banc review in the case of Suprema, Inc. v. International Trade Commission in order to consider whether...more
Earlier this week, the United States Supreme Court delivered unanimous opinions in two separate cases addressing questions of patent law, Limelight Networks v. Akamai Technologies (on induced infringement) and Nautilus v....more
The Supreme Court recently issued two unanimous decisions concerning the standards governing claims for induced infringement and indefiniteness. A summary of the decisions follows.
Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai...more
The US Supreme Court issued two anticipated decisions on June 2, 2014, relating to the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's standards for indefiniteness and induced infringement.
In the first, Nautilus, Inc....more
For the second time in less than two months the Supreme Court unanimously redefines patent law by overturning a Federal Circuit case regarding induced infringement.
In Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies,...more
Implications of Limelight v. Akamai -
The United States Supreme Court ruled Monday that a defendant cannot be liable for inducing infringement unless the induced party directly infringed the patent. This means, under...more
On June 2, 2014, in Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc., et al., No. 12-786, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected the Federal Circuit’s conclusion that a defendant can be liable for inducing infringement...more
On June 2, 2014, in a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court of the United States in Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc. reversed a decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which had...more
After much anticipation, the Supreme Court delivered its opinion in Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc., making clear that a defendant may not be liable for inducing infringement of a method...more
Induced infringement, under § 271(b) of the Patent Act, requires a finding of a predicate direct infringement, under § 271(a).
This proposition, a “simple truth” according to the Supreme Court, does not, at first...more
On June 2, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a unanimous decision that an entity cannot be liable for inducing patent infringement of a method claim where two or more entities perform the required steps of the claim. The...more
Back to Top