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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
If you read one thing... - The Federal Circuit revisited the law of divided infringement under § 271(a) after the Supreme Court remanded the case, noting that the Federal Circuit may have previously been “too narrowly...more
In Akamai Techs. Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., (August 13, 2015 Fed. Cir.) an en banc Federal Circuit unanimously held that direct infringement under Section 271(a) can occur...more
On August 13, 2015, the Federal Circuit in Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc. changed the law regarding liability for direct infringement of a method patent involving more than one actor (divided...more
In an en banc, per curiam decision in Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., on remand from the Supreme Court, the Federal Circuit broadened the circumstances under which a party can be liable for direct...more
The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, on remand from the United States Supreme Court, recently held that certain method claims in a patent owned by Akamai Technologies were infringed by Akamai’s...more
On remand from the U.S. Supreme Court, a unanimous en banc Federal Circuit panel in Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. Limelight Network, Inc., Nos. 2009-1372, -1380, -1416, -1417 (August 13, 2015) this week revised its standard...more
Just over a year ago, the U.S. Supreme Court in Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2111 (2014) held that where a method claim is not directly infringed by a single entity, there can be no claim...more
Accused Infringer’s Good-Faith Belief In Invalidity No Defense To Induced Infringement - In Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc., No. 13-896, the Supreme Court held a good-faith belief a patent is invalid is not a...more
In its most recent pronouncement on patent law, the U.S. Supreme Court once again corrected the Federal Circuit’s understanding of induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. §271(b). On May 26, 2015, in Commil USA, LLC v....more
The United States Supreme Court in its opinion Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc., 572 U. S. ____; Slip Op. No. 12–786 (June 2, 2014) (“Akamai”) holds that there cannot be liability for inducing...more
Following last year’s decision in Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc. et al., 572 U.S. ____ (2014) (holding that a finding of induced infringement requires that all infringing acts be performed by a single...more
Today, a Federal Circuit panel, Judges Prost, Linn (author) and Moore (dissent), issued its long-awaited decision in the Akamia v. Limelight case following remand from the Supreme Court to consider the issue of multiple-actor...more
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
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
Well, 2014 was a busy year in patent law, and it wasn’t all good news for patent holders. The Supreme Court made 35 USC § 101 a significant hurdle to patenting inventions across a broad swath of technologies, gave more teeth...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