News & Analysis as of

Limelight v Akamai Patent Infringement

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP

Single Entity Requirement Under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a-b) Does Not Carry Over to § 271(g) - Intellectual Property News

On Wednesday, the Federal Circuit held that infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(g) does not require a single entity to perform, direct, or control all of the steps of a patented process for infringement liability to arise from...more

K&L Gates LLP

Travel Sentry: Another Divided Infringement Case With a Lot of Baggage

K&L Gates LLP on

The litigation between Travel Sentry and David Tropp received its third Federal Circuit opinion on December 19, 2017. The opinion sheds further light on the Akamai decisions and reinforces the importance of context in...more

Foley & Lardner LLP

Federal Circuit Breathes More Life Into Divided Infringement

Foley & Lardner LLP on

Enforcing a patent with claims that raise the specter of divided infringement can be a difficult plight for patent owners. Even under the more liberal standard set forth in the Federal Circuit’s en banc decision in Akamai v....more

Clark Hill PLC

Providing Conditions May Help Establish Patent Infringement

Clark Hill PLC on

In Travel Sentry, Inc. v. David Tropp (Fed. Cir. 2017), the Federal Circuit clarified two or more parties can commit patent infringement of a method patent if one of the parties is conditioning the other(s). This ruling...more

Morgan Lewis

Federal Circuit Clarifies Akamai Standard for Divided Infringement

Morgan Lewis on

The court’s ruling potentially expands the possible circumstances where the standard could be met. In Travel Sentry v. Tropp, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit expanded the scope of direct infringement under...more

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

2017 Supreme Court and Precedential Patent Cases From the Federal Circuit, With Some Significant Cases from 2016

Arbitration - Waymo v. Uber Technologies, 870 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2017) - Waymo sued Uber and others for trade secret misappropriation and patent infringement. Uber contends that Waymo should be compelled to...more

WilmerHale

Practice Tips for Patentees Asserting Method-of-Treatment Claims Involving Divided Infringement

WilmerHale on

Do physicians ‘‘condition participation’’ of drug therapy based on patients’ compliance with drug manufacturer instructions regarding how to take drugs? Do physicians withhold medically necessary drug therapy from patients...more

Weintraub Tobin

Divided Infringement – Expanding Patent Infringement Liability

Weintraub Tobin on

In 2015, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals cast the net of patent infringement liability even more broadly, to cover direct infringement by “divided” (or “joint”) infringement. Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. Limelight...more

Mintz - Intellectual Property Viewpoints

Pleading Standard Defined– CAFC Holds that Joint Infringement Complaint Requires Identification of All Required Claim Steps

Plaintiffs bringing patent infringement complaints under the Iqbal/Twombly pleading standard should take notice. On September 30, 2016, a panel of the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s dismissal of a deficient...more

Proskauer - New England IP Blog

Waiver Conundrum in Akamai v. Limelight Remand

In a lengthy litigation between Akamai Technologies, Inc. (“Akamai”) and Limelight Networks, Inc. (“Limelight”), the District of Massachusetts recently addressed whether Limelight waived issues presented in its Renewed Motion...more

Weintraub Tobin

Federal Circuit Applies Broadened Test For Divided Infringement

Weintraub Tobin on

On April 18, 2016, the Supreme Court denied certiorari in Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., 797 F.3d 1020 (Fed. Cir., August 2015) (“Akamai IV”), cert. denied, 2016 U.S. LEXIS 2768. The Court declined...more

Fish & Richardson

Supreme Court Denies Petition to Review Expanded Theory of Joint Infringement

Fish & Richardson on

On Monday the Supreme Court denied certiorari in Limelight Networks Inc. v. Akamai Technologies Inc. et al, Case No. 15-993. Limelight had petitioned the Court in January, urging for review of the Federal Circuit’s en banc...more

WilmerHale

Federal Circuit Patent Updates - April 2016

WilmerHale on

Mankes v. Vivid Seats Ltd. (No. 2015-1909, 4/22/16) (Taranto, Schall, Chen) - Taranto, J. Vacating judgment on the pleadings dismissing cases for inadequately pleading divided infringement and remanding for...more

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

Q&A from Webinar on Top Patent Law Stories of 2015

Earlier today, we presented a live webinar on the "Top Patent Law Stories of 2015." The webinar covered seven of the twenty stories that made it onto Patent Docs ninth annual list of top patent stories. The seven stories...more

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

Top Five Stories of 2015

After reflecting upon the events of the past twelve months, Patent Docs presents its ninth annual list of top patent stories. For 2015, we identified twenty stories that were covered on Patent Docs last year that we believe...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Lost-Profits Damages Available Despite 50 Percent Price Disparity - Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc.

McDermott Will & Emery on

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that lost-profits damages were available in a situation where the accused product sold for half the price of the patentee’s product, and consequently remanded the case...more

Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP

Intellectual Property Law - December 2015

Down the Rabbit Hole: Trends in Software Patent Court Decisions Post-Alice - Why it matters: In Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, the U.S. Supreme Court held that claims for a computer-based software method for reducing...more

Miles & Stockbridge P.C.

Federal Circuit Affirms Damage Award Based on Lost Profits

Miles & Stockbridge P.C. on

Last week, the U.S. Federal Circuit unanimously upheld a damage award based on lost profits in the latest round of a decade-long litigation between Akamai Technologies and Limelight Networks. Akamai Technologies v. Limelight...more

Foley & Lardner LLP

Divided Infringement Between Doctor and Patient

Foley & Lardner LLP on

Recent jurisprudence on the issue of divided infringement has arisen in the context of computer-related technologies, where a user or customer performs one or more steps of a patented method. Now the issue has arisen in the...more

Knobbe Martens

Federal Circuit Review | September 2015

Knobbe Martens on

Federal Circuit Remands Record Damages Award For New Trial On Extraterritorial Sales - In Carnegie Mellon University v. Marvell Technology Group, Ltd., Appeal No. 2014-1492, the Federal Circuit reversed a damages award...more

Weintraub Tobin

Divided Infringement: A Stronger Sword for Plaintiffs

Weintraub Tobin on

The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals has established a new test for “divided” patent infringement. Direct infringement of a method patent exists when a single party performs all of the steps of the claimed method. 35 U.S.C....more

King & Spalding

ITC Section 337 Update – September 2015

King & Spalding on

Judge MaryJoan McNamara Appointed New Administrative Law Judge at U.S. International Trade Commission – On August 17, 2015, the ITC issued a news release announcing that Judge MaryJoan McNamara has been appointed as an ALJ....more

WilmerHale

Federal Circuit Patent Updates - August 2015

WilmerHale on

The Dow Chemical Company v. Nova Chemicals Corporation (No. 2014-1431, -1462, 8/28/15) (Prost, Dyk, Wallach). Dyk, J. Reversing award of supplemental damages. "We hold that the intervening change in the law of...more

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

Eli Lilly and Company v. Teva Parenteral Medicines, Inc. (S.D. Ind. 2015) - District Court Finds Lilly Patent Infringed Based on...

Last week, in Eli Lilly and Company v. Teva Parenteral Medicines, Inc., Judge Tanya Walton Pratt of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana determined that Eli Lilly and Company had shown by a...more

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP

IP Newsflash - August 2015 #4

SUPREME COURT CASES - The Supreme Court Upholds Prohibition on Charging Royalties After Patent Expiration - In Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment LLC, 576 U.S. ---- (2015), the Supreme Court declined to overrule its 1964...more

63 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 3

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide