Induced Infringement

News & Analysis as of

They Believed The Patent Was Invalid, But Is That Enough To Avoid Liability For Inducing Infringement?

The answer should be a resounding “no,” according to the United States and Commil USA, LLC, the recipient of a multi-million dollar jury award against Cisco Systems, Inc. Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in...more

Supreme Court Considers New Defense to Inducing Infringement

On March 31, 2015, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc. (No. 13-896), which relates to whether a defendant can be liable for inducing infringement if the defendant had a good faith...more

Impact of Supreme Court’s Commil v. Cisco?

On March 31, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Commil USA LLC v. Cisco Systems Inc. The Supreme Court considered the Federal Circuit’s holding that a belief in a patent’s invalidity is a defense to inducing...more

Daubert Motions Are Granted In Part; Relative Value Allocation Approach To Apportionment Is Unreliable

Stark, C. J. Defendant’s Daubert motion is granted in part and the remaining part remains pending. Plaintiff’s motion to preclude testimony is denied in part and granted in part....more

USITC Declines to Institute Investigation of Induced Patent Infringement as Unfair Method of Competition or Unfair Acts

In a recent decision, the International Trade Commission rejected a petitioner’s attempt to use allegations of unfair competition and unfair acts as a possible way of working around the Federal Circuit’s bar on claims of...more

Congress Takes Up Patent Litigation Reform – Innovation Act Reintroduced, Supreme Court Cases Examined

Congress v SCtPatent litigation reform has been on the U.S. House Judiciary Committee agenda, with the recent reintroduction of legislation seeking to address patent litigation abuses and a hearing examining recent U.S....more

February 2015: Patent Litigation Update

Supreme Court to Review Good Faith Defense to Patent Inducement Claims. Last month in Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 720 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2013), cert. granted in part, No. 13-896, 2014 WL 318394 (U.S. Dec. 5,...more

Protegrity’s “Bare Bones” Allegations Result in Dismissal, Again

In yet another case in the District of Connecticut, Protegrity has seen its claims for indirect and willful infringement dismissed because, according to the court, its complaint did not plead sufficient facts. District Judge...more

The Suprema Federal Circuit En Banc Hearing: The Full Court's Decision May Impact the ITC's Remedial Authority

On February 5, 2015, the Federal Circuit sat en banc and heard oral argument after vacating a panel decision in Suprema, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 742 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2013). The panel decided that the ITC lacks...more

Intellectual Property Alert: Federal Circuit Considers Whether ITC Can Properly Exclude Imported Products That Only Infringe...

On February 5, 2015, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit sitting en banc heard oral arguments in Suprema, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, Fed. Cir., No. 2012-1170, a case involving the ability of the International Trade...more

ITC Section 337 Update - February 2015

Oral Argument Fails To Shed Light On The Outcome Of Anticipated En Banc Federal Circuit Decision In Suprema – On February 8, oral argument was held before the en banc Federal Circuit in Suprema v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, Case No....more

The En Banc Federal Circuit Hears Argument in Suprema, Inc. v. ITC

On Thursday, February 5, 2015, the en banc Federal Circuit heard oral argument in the matter of Suprema, Inc. v. ITC, reviewing its controversial panel decision holding that in ITC investigations induced infringement cannot...more

Statute Intended to Close Deepsouth Loophole Given Broad Interpretation - Promega Corp. v. Life Techs. Corp.

Addressing the requirements of infringement based on extraterritorial combinations of components, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a lower court’s ruling of no infringement, finding that for a patent...more

Federal Circuit Hears Oral Arguments in Suprema, Inc. v. International Trade Commission Rehearing en banc

Court considers whether the U.S. International Trade Commission has authority over allegations of induced infringement and infringement of method-of-use claims by importers. Procedural Background - Suprema v....more

The Death of Induced Infringement (According to the Supreme Court)?

In its June 2, 2014 decision, Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc., the Supreme Court unanimously overturned a previous Federal Circuit ruling, holding that a defendant will not be liable for induced...more

The Year Ahead in Patent Law - 2015

With the advent of the America Invents Act (AIA), public perception of frivolous patent litigation, frequently surrounding cases filed by non-practicing entities (NPEs), has received increasing legislative attention. Although...more

Supreme Court to Consider Scope of “Good Faith” Belief and the Intent Requirement of § 271(b)

Commil USA v. Cisco Systems - Earlier this year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that a good-faith belief that a patent is invalid may negate the element of intent required to prove induced...more

Intellectual Property 2014 Year In Review

There were a number of notable developments in patent case law in 2014. Key decisions from the Federal Circuit and Supreme Court tackled a variety of key issues, including patent eligibility of software and business methods,...more

Top Stories of 2014: #6 to #4

After reflecting upon the events of the past twelve months, Patent Docs presents its eighth annual list of top patent stories. For 2014, we identified eighteen stories that were covered on Patent Docs last year that we...more

Supreme Court 2014 Patent Preview

On average, the U.S. Supreme Court historically hears fewer than one patent case each term. For example, in the 14 years between 1982 and 1995, the Court decided only five patent cases. In the seven years between 1995 and...more

Supreme Court Update: Warger V. Shauers (13-517), Integrity Staffing Solutions V. Busk (13-433) And Order List

We're back with summaries of the first signed decisions of the term, Warger v. Shauers (13-517) on whether Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b) precludes juror testimony during a proceeding in which a party seeks to secure a new...more

Supreme Court to Review Defenses to Induced Patent Infringement

On December 5, 2014, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Commil USA, LLC, v. Cisco Systems, Inc., to decide whether a defendant’s good-faith belief that a patent is invalid is a defense to induced infringement....more

Supreme Court to Consider Good-Faith Belief of Invalidity Defense

On December 5, 2014, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Commil v. Cisco to decide whether an infringer’s good-faith belief of patent invalidity is a defense to induced infringement. The case could prove significant for...more

CAFC to Rehear Suprema: Disposition Could Have Significant Repercussions for ITC Jurisdiction

On February 5, 2015 the en banc Federal Circuit will hear oral argument in the matter of Suprema, Inc. v. ITC., Case No. 2012-1170 (Fed. Cir.). This rehearing reviews the controversial Federal Circuit opinion holding that “an...more

A Brief Synopsis of the Issues Confronting the Federal Circuit in the En Banc Rehearing of Suprema, Inc. v. ITC

On February 5, 2015 the en banc Federal Circuit will hear oral argument in the matter of Suprema, Inc. v. ITC.1 This rehearing reviews the controversial Federal Circuit opinion holding that “an exclusion order based on a...more

97 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 4

All the intelligence you need, in one easy email:

Great! Your first step to building an email digest of JD Supra authors and topics. Log in with LinkedIn so we can start sending your digest...

Sign up for your custom alerts now, 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.
×