Limelight

News & Analysis as of

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

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

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

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 Unanimously Overrules Federal Circuit’s Decision in Akamai

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

Supreme Court Reverses Federal Circuit on Induced Infringement in Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai

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

The Standard for Joint and Induced Infringement in Light of Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc.

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

Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc. (2014)

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

Supreme Court Reverses En Banc Federal Circuit on Divided Patent Infringement

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

Supreme Court Limits Scope of Induced Infringement

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

Supreme Court Clarifies Standards for Indefiniteness and Induced Infringement

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

"Supreme Court Tightens Requirement for Proving Induced Infringement of Method Patents"

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

Supreme Court Rulings Help Defendants in Patent Infringement Suits

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

16 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 1