Patent Law Weblog
recent posts
- Why the Alice Test is Stupid, Part IV: The Usefulness Paradox
- Teva Capitulates to Federal Trade Commission Coercion
- USPTO Issues Memoranda on Subject Matter Eligibility
- USPTO Revokes Guidance on AI-Assisted Inventorship, But Rules Remain Basically the Same
- Why the Alice Test is Stupid, Part III: Eligible Independent Claims Can Have Ineligible Dependent Claims
about
Category: Infringement – Contributory or Induced
-
By Donald Zuhn — Earlier today, in Life Technologies Corp. v. Promega Corp., the Supreme Court reversed a determination by the Federal Circuit that there are circumstances in which a party may be liable under § 271(f)(1) for supplying or causing to be supplied a single component for combination outside the United States, holding instead…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — 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 patent appellate court has crafted a two-prong test for assessing when the actions of more than a single actor amount…
-
By Andrew Williams — On Tuesday, December 6, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments regarding the interpretation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(f)(1), with the pertinent section highlighted: Whoever without authority supplies or causes to be supplied in or from the United States all or a substantial portion of the components of a patented invention, where…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — The complexities that can be attendant on defending against an infringement allegation, and the possibility that a straightforward path to non-infringement can be complicated by claim construction even for terms construed using their plain meaning, are illustrated in the Federal Circuit's opinion affirming a jury verdict of infringement in LifeNet…
-
By Donald Zuhn — After reflecting upon the events of the past twelve months, Patent Docs presents its ninth annual list of top patent stories. For 2015, we identified twenty stories that were covered on Patent Docs last year that we believe had (or are likely to have) the greatest impact on patent practitioners and…
-
District Court Finds Lilly Patent Infringed Based on Inducement of Infringement by Single Actor By Donald Zuhn — Last week, in Eli Lilly and Company v. Teva Parenteral Medicines, Inc., Judge Tanya Walton Pratt of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana determined that Eli Lilly and Company had shown by a…
-
Standard Essential Patents Unenforceable on Theory of Indirect Infringement By Joseph Herndon — A recent decision by the Federal Circuit in JVC Kenwood Corp. v. Nero, Inc., decided August 17, 2015, involves nuanced details of standard-essential patents, but arrived at a common sense result: either the patents at issue are standard-essential and thus licensed by…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan & Michael Borella — The Federal Circuit handed down a unanimous en banc decision today regarding the interplay between literal infringement and induced infringement in Akamai Technologies Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc. On remand from a disapproving reversal by the Supreme Court, the en banc court took notice of the "opportunity"…
-
By Diego F. Freire and Michael Borella — 1. Background In 2006, Akamai Technologies ("Akamai") sued Limelight Networks, Inc. ("Limelight") in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,108,703. The '703 patent is assigned to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology ("MIT") and is exclusively licensed to Akamai.…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — The Supreme Court handed down its decision in Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc. today and in doing so reprised several themes that have emerged over the past decade of the Court's activist approach to patent law. The Court reversed the Federal Circuit (albeit technically that court's decision was…
Patent Docs 