From the nadir of the Supreme Court's allegations that the Federal Circuit "fundamentally misunderstood" the law of inducing infringement in Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc., the nation's specialized...more
In its most recent pronouncement on patent law, the U.S. Supreme Court once again corrected the Federal Circuit’s understanding of induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. §271(b). On May 26, 2015, in Commil USA, LLC v....more
The United States Supreme Court in its opinion Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc., 572 U. S. ____; Slip Op. No. 12–786 (June 2, 2014) (“Akamai”) holds that there cannot be liability for inducing...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
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
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
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
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
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 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
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
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
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
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
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
On June 2, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc. et al., holding that a defendant may not be liable for induced infringement of a patent under 35 U.S.C. §...more
On June 2, 2014, a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court held in Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc. that direct infringement by a single party is a prerequisite to a finding of induced infringement. In doing so, the...more
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
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
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
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
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