Source: http://patentlyo.com/patent/2013/12/us-government-suggests-that-supreme-court-reject-federal-circuits-divided-infringement-jurisprudence.html
Timestamp: 2014-03-09 13:21:31
Document Index: 550142983

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

US Government Suggests that Supreme Court Reject Federal Circuit’s Divided Infringement Jurisprudence | Patently-O
December 12, 2013PatentDennis Crouch	By Dennis Crouch Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc. (Supreme Court 2013) Akamai is the licensee of MIT’s patents for that solve some problems associated with distributing large amount of data to individual servers and endpoints in a large computer network (such as the Internet). The ideas therein are used by Limelight to distribute video content on behalf of many of the largest content providers in the world. However, the Akamai/MIT patent has a problem in that several steps of the claimed method are performed by Limelight but others are performed by its customers. Prior Federal Circuit cases would have found Limelight not liable in this situation because no single entity (or its agents) performed each and every step of the claimed invention. The Federal Circuit rejected that rule in its en banc decision in this case – holding instead that Limelight could be held liable under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) for practicing several of the steps itself and inducing others to perform the remaining steps. Limelight has petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, asking the following question: Whether the Federal Circuit erred in holding that a defendant may be held liable for inducing patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) even though no one has committed direct infringement under § 271(a). The question presented by Limelight is somewhat misleading because the Federal Circuit left-open for another day whether Limelight’s activity could be considered direct infringement under § 271(a). Adamai/MIT re-wrote the question: Whether the Federal Circuit correctly held that a determination of induced infringement under § 271(b) does not require a predicate finding that a single entity was liable for infringement under § 271(a), under circumstances where all of the steps of a method claim are performed, but the inducer performs some steps itself and induces another to perform the remaining steps? The Supreme Court then asked the US Solicitor General to provide comments on behalf of the US Government. In a brief signed both by the US Solicitor General Donald Verrilli and USPTO Solicitor Nathan Kelley, the US Government has supported the petition for writ of certiorari and sughested that the court reverse the Federal Circuit Decision. The US Government position is typically seen as the most important and predictive brief on whether the Supreme Court will hear a particular case. The government writes: The Court should grant the petition … hold that a party cannot be liable for inducement under 35 U.S.C. 271(b) if no party has directly infringed the patent. In its brief, the Government recognizes that, if the court follows its proposal, that the law “will likely permit vendors such as Limelight to avoid liability altogether.” The brief goes on to indicate that the “statutory gap is unfortunate, but reflects the better reading of the current statutory language in light of establish background principles of vicarious liability.” The basic statutory argument is that 271(b) creates liability against someone who “actively induces infringement.” And, the implication that the word infringement in the statute means infringement under 271(a). SCOTUS Blog has the briefs: http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/limelight-networks-inc-v-akamai-technologies-inc/ About Dennis Crouch
← Director Michelle Lee: A Rough Start	AIPLA Files Amicus Brief in Octane v. Icon on 285, Urging Supremes to Reject Brooks Furniture Test →