Limelight Networks

News & Analysis as of

ITC Section 337 Update – August 2014

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

BioPharma Patents Quick Tips and News - May/June 2014

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

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 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

Thoughts on Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l

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

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

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

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

Cloud Computing Is a Hot Topic… in Business and the Courtroom

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

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

Litigation Alert: Supreme Court Revives 'Divided Infringement' Defense to Inducement

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

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

Supreme Court Reverses Federal Circuit on Two Key Patent Issues

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

Supreme Court Leads the Way in Patent Litigation Reform

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

43 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 2