Examining the Impact of the Supreme Court's Limelight v. Akamai Decision
The 2013-14 term of the Supreme Court ended with multiple decisions on intellectual property issues.
Over the past few months, the Court issued a number of patent law related opinions covering ground from claim...more
Fifth Annual "Live at the ITC" –
On July 30, 2014, the Fifth Annual Forum on Section 337 and Other Developments at the U.S. International Trade Commission, entitled Live at the ITC, was co-sponsored by the ABA-IPL...more
QUICK TIPS -
35 U.S.C. 112 Tips:
1) Does your U.S. Examiner assert that not enough representative species are described in the specification?
MPEP Section 2163 II.A.3(a)(ii) says that “(t)he written...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
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
There's an old saying that "bad facts make bad law," acknowledging that a court's decision regarding an extreme case can result in law that poorly serves less extreme cases. The Supreme Court's recent trio of 35 U.S.C. § 101...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
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
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
Cloud computing sales are poised to triple by 2017, according to IHS Technology. With growth comes competition and the potential for disputes, both intellectual property-related and otherwise. This article surveys some of the...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
Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc., No. 12-786, Slip Op. (June 2, 2014) -
The United States Supreme Court has revived “divided infringement” as a defense to claims for inducement of patent...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
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
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
Back to Top