Today, in Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that an accused infringer’s good faith belief that a patent is invalid is not a defense to induced infringement, reversing the Federal Circuit on that issue (see our June 25, 2013 post on the Federal Circuit’s decision).  The Court also

Today in Commil v. Cisco the Supreme Court granted the petition for writ of certiorari to review the following specific question presented:

Whether the Federal Circuit erred in holding that a defendant’s belief that a patent is invalid is a defense to induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b).

We provided a summary of the

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

Today, Tuesday, June 25, 2013, in Commil USA v. Cisco Systems, No. 2012-1042, the Federal Circuit (Newman (concur/dissent), Prost, and O’Malley (concur/dissent)) reversed a finding of induced infringement where the jury instruction erroneously used a negligence standard and the district court erroneously excluded rebuttal evidence of the accused infringer’s good faith belief that

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)