Supreme Court clarifies test for § 271(b) induced infringement, invites Federal Circuit to revisit Muniauction test for § 271(a) direct infringement
By Brian Biggs
Induced infringement, under § 271(b) of the Patent Act, requires a finding of a predicate direct infringement, under § 271(a).
This proposition, a ‘simple truth’ according to the Supreme Court, does not, at first blush, seem controversial. The Court, however, found that the en banc Federal Circuit misapplied this rule by failing to apply (or reconsider) the Federal Circuit’s own precedent in Muniauction Inc v Thomson Corp 532 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (finding that § 271(a) direct infringement requires that each step of a claimed method has been performed either by the defendant or at the defendant’s direction or control). The Supreme Court, thus, reversed.
Limelight, the respondent and accused infringer, performs all but one step of the patented method claim, the so-called ‘tagging’ step, which Limelight’s customers may perform. Prior to the Muniauction decision, a jury found that Limelight indirectly infringed the patented method…
Click on the link below to read the rest of the DLA Piper briefing.
News from DLA Piper
News from The Lawyer
Briefings from DLA Piper
Cour de Cassation quashes decision that disregarded ICC rule on time limits to arbitrator challenges — two takeaways
This milestone decision further limits the scope for French courts to annul arbitration awards and reinforces the efficiency of France-seated arbitral proceedings.
This decision is in line with a possible judicial trend towards enforceability of good faith obligations under English law.
Analysis from The Lawyer
Shearman & Sterling is making its presence felt in the City, squaring up to magic circle firms and looking to muscle in on key relationships. Private equity house Bridgepoint is one outfit that has had its head turned by the US firm.
A new breed of lawyer is smoothing the path for companies entering emerging or unstable jurisdictions