The litigation between Travel Sentry and David Tropp received its third Federal Circuit opinion on December 19, 2017. The opinion sheds further light on the Akamai decisions and reinforces the importance of context in...more
Enforcing a patent with claims that raise the specter of divided infringement can be a difficult plight for patent owners. Even under the more liberal standard set forth in the Federal Circuit’s en banc decision in Akamai v....more
In Travel Sentry, Inc. v. David Tropp (Fed. Cir. 2017), the Federal Circuit clarified two or more parties can commit patent infringement of a method patent if one of the parties is conditioning the other(s). This ruling...more
The court’s ruling potentially expands the possible circumstances where the standard could be met. In Travel Sentry v. Tropp, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit expanded the scope of direct infringement under...more
Arbitration - Waymo v. Uber Technologies, 870 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2017) - Waymo sued Uber and others for trade secret misappropriation and patent infringement. Uber contends that Waymo should be compelled to...more
Do physicians ‘‘condition participation’’ of drug therapy based on patients’ compliance with drug manufacturer instructions regarding how to take drugs? Do physicians withhold medically necessary drug therapy from patients...more
In 2015, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals cast the net of patent infringement liability even more broadly, to cover direct infringement by “divided” (or “joint”) infringement. Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. Limelight...more
Recent jurisprudence on the issue of divided infringement has arisen in the context of computer-related technologies, where a user or customer performs one or more steps of a patented method. Now the issue has arisen in the...more
Federal Circuit Remands Record Damages Award For New Trial On Extraterritorial Sales - In Carnegie Mellon University v. Marvell Technology Group, Ltd., Appeal No. 2014-1492, the Federal Circuit reversed a damages award...more
The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals has established a new test for “divided” patent infringement. Direct infringement of a method patent exists when a single party performs all of the steps of the claimed method. 35 U.S.C....more
The Dow Chemical Company v. Nova Chemicals Corporation (No. 2014-1431, -1462, 8/28/15) (Prost, Dyk, Wallach). Dyk, J. Reversing award of supplemental damages. "We hold that the intervening change in the law of...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
In an en banc, per curiam decision in Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., on remand from the Supreme Court, the Federal Circuit broadened the circumstances under which a party can be liable for direct...more
The Federal Circuit, sitting en banc in Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., this week adopted a new standard governing divided infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a). The new standard is likely to enhance...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
On remand from the U.S. Supreme Court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit last month held in Akamai Tech. Inc. v. Limelight Networks Inc. that “direct infringement liability of a method claim under 35 U.S.C....more
On remand from the Supreme Court, a 2-1 majority panel of the Federal Circuit reasoned in Akamai Tech., Inc., v. Limelight Networks, Inc. 2015 U.S. App. Lexis 7856 (Fed. Cir. 2015), that there could be no “direct”...more