Examining the Impact of the Supreme Court's Limelight v. Akamai Decision
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
Gaby L. Longsworth, Ph.D., director at the intellectual property law firm Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox, discusses the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc. She...more
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
Ruling unanimously twice in one day, the Supreme Court of the United States has issued two significant patent decisions that will significantly impact patent litigation in the future.
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
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
The Supreme Court recently issued two unanimous decisions concerning the standards governing claims for induced infringement and indefiniteness. A summary of the decisions follows.
Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai...more
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
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
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
After much anticipation, the Supreme Court delivered its opinion in Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc., making clear that a defendant may not be liable for inducing infringement of a method...more
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
On June 2, the United States Supreme Court issued a pair of unanimous decisions in closely watched patent cases, both of which will make it harder to maintain a claim for patent infringement. In Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig...more
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday limited the instances in which a party might be liable for inducing patent infringement. In a decision titled Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc., the Court held that a party...more
In a decision dated June 2, 2014, in the case Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc. (No. 12-786), the U.S. Supreme Court held that a defendant is not liable for induced patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. §...more
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
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
Back to Top