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

  • nike already shoe comparisonLast week, the United States Supreme Court handed down its unanimous opinion in Already, LLC v. Nike (No. 11-982).  The Court held that Nike’s issuance of a broad covenant not to sue on one of its trademarks extinguished Already’s standing to its counterclaim for invalidity of Nike’s trademark.  While this case involved trademarks, not patents,