Induced Infringement

News & Analysis as of

Recent SCOTUS Decisions in Intellectual Property Cases

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

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

Supreme Court Aiding Fight against Patent Trolls: Alice, Nautilus, Limelight, Octane Fitness and Highmark

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

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

U.S. Supreme Court Reverses Court of Appeals for Federal Circuit Regarding the Standard for Inducement of Infringement

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

Supreme Court Update: Four Important Decisions for IP

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

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 Changes the Rules for Induced Infringement

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

In Nautilus, Supreme Court Relaxes Standard for Finding Patents Invalid for Indefiniteness

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

Supreme Court Sets Forth New Standard for Indefiniteness, Requiring Greater Precision in Claim Terms than the Standard Long Used...

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

U.S. Supreme Court Issues Two Significant Patent Rulings

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. ...more

The Supreme Court Overturns Two More Federal Circuit Decisions

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

Patent Law Alert: U.S. Supreme Court Raises the Bar for Patent Owners in Induced Infringement Claims

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

Federal Circuit to Review Consideration of Induced Infringement at the ITC En Banc

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

Supreme Court Delivers Unanimous Decisions in Two Important Patent Cases: What Do This Week’s Limelight and Nautilus Decisions...

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

Supreme Court Issues Significant Decisions in the Limelight Networks and Nautilus Cases Unanimously Overturning the Federal...

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

Supreme Court Unanimously Rejects Federal Circuit Standards for Indefiniteness and Induced Infringement

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

The Supreme Court's Limelight Continues to Rein in the Federal Circuit

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

Divided Infringement Steps into the Limelight

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

Supreme Court Limits Induced Infringement Liability—For Now

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

Supreme Court: No Inducement Based on Divided (Direct) Infringement

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

Supreme Court Curbs Inducement Doctrine in Limelight Networks v. Akamai Technologies

Summary - 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

Supreme Court clarifies test for § 271(b) induced infringement, invites Federal Circuit to revisit Muniauction test for § 271(a)...

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

Supreme Court Limits the Reach of Induced Patent Infringement

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

71 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 3