Source: http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/supreme-court-clarifies-test-for-271b-73495/
Timestamp: 2014-12-21 05:39:07
Document Index: 267423905

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271']

Supreme Court clarifies test for § 271(b) induced infringement, invites Federal Circuit to revisit Muniauction test for § 271(a) direct infringement | DLA Piper - JDSupra
Brian Biggs | DLA Piper
less- Explore: Akamai Technologies Induced Infringement Infringement Limelight Limelight Networks Patent Litigation Patents SCOTUS Tweet Send
Justice Samuel Alito, delivering the opinion on behalf of a unanimous Court, reasoned that induced infringement, under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), requires an underlying direct infringement. Assuming without deciding the accuracy of the Federal Circuit’s Muniauction decision, the opinion reasoned there can be no indirect infringement when “the performance of all the patent’s steps is not attributable to any one person.” Because there was no finding below that Limelight either performed, directed, or controlled the tagging step, Muniauction instructs that there was no direct infringement; thus, there was no indirect infringement (even if Limelight encouraged tagging). In so finding, the Supreme Court declined to question the merits of Muniauction, but invited the Federal Circuit to do so. The Court granted certiorari on a question “clearly focused on § 271(b), not § 271(a),” a question that presupposed Limelight had not committed direct infringement under § 271(a). While declining to review Muniauction, the Court stated “the Federal Circuit will have the opportunity to revisit the § 271(a) question if it so chooses.”
Topics: Akamai Technologies, Induced Infringement, Infringement, Limelight, Limelight Networks, Patent Litigation, Patents, SCOTUS