News & Analysis as of

Miniauction

Foley & Lardner LLP

After the Supreme Court's Limelight Decision, Attention May Shift to Contract Analysis in Patent Cases

Foley & Lardner LLP on

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

Goodwin

In Limelight, Supreme Court Rejects Inducement Liability Without a Direct Infringer

Goodwin on

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

Stoel Rives LLP

Patent Law Alert: U.S. Supreme Court Raises the Bar for Patent Owners in Induced Infringement Claims

Stoel Rives LLP on

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

Mintz - Trademark & Copyright Viewpoints

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

Bracewell LLP

The Supreme Court's Limelight Continues to Rein in the Federal Circuit

Bracewell LLP on

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

Foley Hoag LLP

Divided Infringement Steps into the Limelight

Foley Hoag LLP on

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

McDermott Will & Emery

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

McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC

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

Dorsey & Whitney LLP

Post Limelight v. Akamai, Are Multi-actor Method Patent Claims D.O.A.?

Dorsey & Whitney LLP on

The Supreme Court’s decision in Limelight v. Akamai yesterday requires a single actor, direct infringer to exist as a prerequisite to any finding of direct or indirect infringement. This decision, in view of the Federal...more

Proskauer Rose LLP

The U.S. Supreme Court Rules On Induced Infringement

Proskauer Rose LLP on

On June 2, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Limelight Networks Inc. v. Akamai Technologies Inc. et al., holding that to prevail on a theory of patent inducement one party must be responsible for performing...more

10 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 1

"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