It is a deceptively simple question with a not so simple answer. A purely foreign transaction is certainly beyond the reach of U.S. patent law, but what if part of the transaction occurs within the United States? For example,...more
Design patents are an often-overlooked form of intellectual property, lying somewhere at the crossroads of trademark law, utility patent law, and copyright law. After the Federal Circuit's May 18, 2015 decision in Apple v....more
In its 2013 decision in Keurig, Inc. v. Sturm Foods, Inc., the Federal Circuit held that a purveyor of coffee cartridges did not infringe Keurig’s coffee brewing patents because Keurig had already made an unrestricted sale of...more
The America Invents Act introduced a new statute, 35 U.S.C. § 299, which provides that “accused infringers may not be joined in one action as defendants or counterclaim defendants, or have their actions consolidated for...more
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
7/3/2014
/ Akamai Technologies ,
Contract Interpretation ,
Direct Infringement ,
Induced Infringement ,
Limelight Networks ,
Limelight v Akamai ,
Miniauction ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
SCOTUS
Declaratory judgment plaintiffs and counterclaimants in patent cases have long been accustomed to filing boilerplate claims that either do not identify an accused technology, or that do so in a cursory manner. Noninfringement...more
The Federal Circuit’s August 27, 2013 decision in Applied Medical Resources Corp. v. Tyco Healthcare Group LP (Case No. 2012-1412) (nonprecedential) relied on the seldom-used “difference in kind” test in analyzing...more