Protecting IP Rights After Limelight Networks v. Akamai: Implications for Divided Patent Infringement and Inducement

Description

On June 2, 2014, the Supreme Court unanimously reversed the Federal Circuit in Limelight Networks Inc. v. Akamai Techs. Inc., holding that liability for induced patent infringement requires an underlying act of direct infringement. The Court rejected the Federal Circuit's ruling that a defendant may be liable for inducement absent direct infringement. The Court’s decision makes it tougher to prove infringement of method claims.

The decision gives new life to the perceived infringement loophole that allows “a would-be infringer to evade liability by dividing performance of a method patent’s steps with another whom the defendant neither directs nor controls.” The Court attributed this to the Federal Circuit’s interpretation in Muniauction Inc. v. Thomson Corp. (2008).

Patent counsel must carefully draft patent claims so that all steps of a method claim are performed by a single actor even if other entities could be involved in the invention.

Listen as our authoritative panel of patent attorneys examines the Akamai decision and the implications of the decision for both prosecution and litigation. The panel will discuss the revival of the divided infringement loophole and outline steps counsel to patent owners should take to protect IP rights.