Source: https://www.glaserweil.com/news-resources/insights/P10?tag=Patent+Litigation
Timestamp: 2019-07-20 01:49:43
Document Index: 545997993

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2', '§ 101', '§ 101', '§ 101', '§ 271', '§ 271']

By: Steven Basileo
TAGS: Federal Circuit, federal court, Intellectual Property, Intellectual Property, Litigation, patent, patent case, patent claim, Patent damages, patent infringement, Patent Law, Patent Litigation, patent litigation, PTAB, PTAB, Supreme Court, U.S. Supreme Court
Recently, the Federal Circuit, for a second time this year, evaluated infringement of a method claim.[1] The Court, vacating the recent panel decision in May, outlined the governing framework for direct infringement of a method claim. It held that direct infringement occurs “where all steps of a claimed method are performed by or attributable to a single entity.”[2] This holding is significant because proving direct infringement of a method claim where steps of the method are performed by more than one party no longer requires the parties to be in principal-agent or contractual relationships, or joint enterprise, as demanded by the vacated panel decision.
TAGS: akamai technologies, direct infringement, Federal Circuit, Intellectual Property, Intellectual Property, limelight, patent claim, Patent Law, Patent Litigation, patent litigation, Section 271(a), Supreme Court, USPTO
In last week’s 6-5 decision in SCA Hygiene Prod. v. First Quality Baby Prod., LLC, No. 2013-1564, 2015 WL 5474261 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 18, 2015), the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, sitting en banc, reaffirmed that laches remains a viable defense in patent infringement lawsuits. The decision was reached despite the relatively recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., 134 S.Ct. 1962 (2014), where the high court struck laches as an available copyright infringement defense. However, the Federal Circuit’s sharp divide on this issue suggests that further review by the U.S. Supreme Court may be on its way.
TAGS: Federal Circuit, federal court, Intellectual Property, Intellectual Property, laches, patent act, patent case, patent claim, patent infringement, Patent Law, Patent Litigation, patent litigation, U.S. Supreme Court, US Supreme Court
Navigating Patent Damages Part III: Statutory Indemnification - Implied Warranty Against Infringement
In this third article relating to patent damages, we explore the effects of implied indemnification provisions when evaluating who is responsible for litigation costs when faced with an infringement suit.
TAGS: 84 lumber co v mrk techs ltd, chemtron inc v. aqua products inc, implied indemnification, implied warranty against infringement, inc v olaes enterprises, inc v sony eletronics, inc., infringement claim, motorola inc v. varo inc, pacific sunwear of california, patent damages, patent infringement, patent litigation, phoenix solutions, rightful claim, sun coast merchandise corp v. myron corp, ucc, ucc § 2-3123, uniform commercial code
Federal Circuit Attacks Functional Claim Drafting Under 35 U.S.C. § 101
In Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Networks, the Federal Circuit affirmed yet another dismissal of a patent infringement lawsuit due to the asserted patent being invalid for lacking patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Here, the sole patent-in-suit, U.S. Patent No. 7,707,505 (the “’505 Patent”), was generally directed to the use of a web browser Back and Forth navigational functionalities without data loss in an online application consisting of dynamically generated webpages. Claim 1 of the ’505 Patent recites:
TAGS: 35 U.S.C. § 101, Federal Circuit, Internet Patents Corp v Active Networks, inventive concept, patent eligible subject matter, patent infringement, Patent Litigation, Williamson v Citrix Online LLC
Federal Circuit Reaffirms Single Entity Rule for Divided Infringement under Section 271(a) in Akamai, Making Method Claims Difficult to Enforce
On May 13, 2015, the Federal Circuit issued the much-anticipated decision in Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc. following a remand from the Supreme Court.[1] The Federal Circuit, in a 2-1 decision, held that “direct infringement liability of a method claim under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) exists when all of the steps of the claim are performed by or attributed to a single entity[.]” This is consistent with its 2008 Muniauction decision, where the Federal Circuit first made clear that “direct infringement requires a single party to perform every step of a claimed method.”[2] The Akamai Court concluded that when “one party, acting as ‘mastermind’ exercises sufficient ‘direction or control’ over the actions of another,” the “single entity” requirement may be met and the direct infringement may be found. Sufficient direction or control may occur in a principal-agent relationship, a contractual arrangement, or a joint enterprise.
TAGS: 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), akamai technologies, Akamai Technologies Inc v Limelight Networks Inc, direct infrignment liability, Fed Cir, Inc., Intellectual Property, limelight, Muniauction Inc., Patent Litigation