Direct Infringement

Subscribe to Direct Infringement

Today, the Federal Circuit sitting en banc changed direction again on § 271(a) direct infringement and ruled that Limelight was liable for direct infringement based on substantial evidence supporting the jury verdict of infringement where the “alleged infringer conditions participation in an activity or receipt of a benefit upon performance of a step or steps…

Today, a Federal Circuit panel, Judges Prost, Linn (author) and Moore (dissent), issued its long-awaited decision in the Akamia v. Limelight case following remand from the Supreme Court to consider the issue of multiple-actor direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) (see our June 2, 2014 post).  The panel again found that there was…

Today the Supreme Court issued its decision in Limelight v. Akamai, ruling that there is no liability for induced infringement under §271(b) induced infringement “when no one has directly infringed the patent under §271(a) or any other statutory provision,” thus reversing the Federal Circuit’s prior and more permissive standard that simply required that all…

On Tuesday, Sep. 4, 2012, in Mirror Worlds v. Apple, Inc., No. 2011-1392, the Federal Circuit (Lourie, Newman and Prost (dissent-in-part)) affirmed an E.D. Tex. court’s ruling that overturned a jury verdict of induced infringement based on failure of proof of an underlying direct infringement.  This case provides incremental insight into induced infringement post-Akamai.
Continue Reading Patent Alert: Federal Circuit rules no inducement because insufficient proof of underlying direct infringement (Mirror Worlds v. Apple)

Today, Friday, August 31, 2012, in a combined en banc decision in Akamai Tech. v. MIT and McKesson v. EPIC Sys, Nos. 2009-1372 and 2010-1291, the Federal Circuit (Majority: Rader, Lourie, Bryson, Moore, Reyna and Wallach; Dissent: Newman; Dissent: Linn, Dyk, Prost and O’Malley) substantially changed § 271(b) induced infringement by overruling the BMC Resources rule that a “single entity” must perform all claimed method steps to establish underlying direct infringement required for an induced infringement claim: “To be clear, we hold that all the steps of a claimed method must be performed in order to find induced infringement, but that it is not necessary to prove that all the steps were committed by a single entity.”
Continue Reading Patent Alert: Federal Circuit changes law of induced infringement (Akamai and McKesson)

Today, Thu., June 7, 2012, in In re Bill of Lading, No. 2010-1493, the Federal Circuit (Newman (dissent), Prost and O’Malley) ruled that complaints were properly dismissed for not pleading contributory infringement, but they sufficiently pled induced infringement.  This case provides important guidance in pleading patent infringement, which is often a concern in multiple defendant cases.Continue Reading Patent Alert: Federal Circuit clarifies how to plead direct and indirect infringement (In re Bill of Lading)