From the nadir of the Supreme Court's allegations that the Federal Circuit "fundamentally misunderstood" the law of inducing infringement in Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc., the nation's specialized...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
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
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
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
Last week the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals (“Federal Circuit”) “changed the game” for parties, including website and mobile app owners that work in tandem with end users, to practice the steps of a patent. In Akamai...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
On Thursday, August 13, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc. unanimously overruled its prior narrow interpretation of divided infringement....more
Supreme Court Sets New Indefiniteness Standard - In Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., Appeal No. 13-169, the Supreme Court vacated and remanded Federal Circuit’s reversal of summary judgment because the...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
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
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
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
In a unanimous and unequivocal opinion, the Supreme Court ruled yesterday that liability for inducement of patent infringement requires that the induced entity itself perform every element of a claim, and thus directly...more
On June 2, 2014, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc., reversing the en banc Federal Circuit decision and holding that there can be no liability for induced...more
In the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision today in Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc., the Supreme Court reversed the Federal Circuit's en banc holding that a defendant need not perform all of the steps of a...more
Today, in Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc., the Supreme Court determined that a defendant is not liable for inducing infringement of a patent under 35 U. S. C. § 271(b) when no one has directly infringed...more
Yesterday in Limelight Networks, Inc., v. Akamai Technologies, Inc. the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously reversed the en banc Federal Circuit and held that a defendant cannot be liable for inducing patent infringement under 35...more
In Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Techs., Inc. (U.S., No. 13-369), the Supreme Court held that a defendant cannot be liable for induced patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) in the absence of an underlying direct...more
On June 2, 2014, the United States Supreme Court issued opinions in Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., No. 13-369 and Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Techs., Inc., No. 12-786. In Nautilus, the Supreme Court...more
In a unanimous decision issued on June 2, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court significantly tightened the requirements for proving inducement of infringement of method patent claims under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). Limelight Networks, Inc....more
The U.S. Supreme Court issued decisions in two major patent infringement cases today, overturning Federal Circuit Court of Appeals rulings on the standards for proving patent vagueness and induced infringement. Summaries of...more