Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc.: Direct Infringement Must Be Present To Find I

6/8/2014 - The U.S. Supreme Court held in Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc. on June 2, 2014 that in order to find inducement under 35 U.S.C. §271(b), direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. §271(a) must also be present. Although the Court limits the scope of its holding to this particular question, the Court reverses and remands the case to the Fed. Circuit, and leaves open the possibility that direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. §271(a) can be revisited and the Fed. Cir. can reconsider its application of Muniauction, which requires that direct infringement "requires a single party to perform every step of the claimed method," such that the single party exercises "control or direction" over the entire process. Read More.

Featured Posts
Recent Posts
Search By Tags
No tags yet.

Berkeley Office:

2000 Hearst Avenue, Suite 305

Berkeley, California 94709

Phone: (510) 900-9501
Fax: (408) 228-3739

Copyright © 2011-2019 Kwan & Olynick LLP.  All rights reserved. 

Kwan & Olynick LLP does not discriminate on the grounds of race, religion, age, nationality, social or ethnic origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity or expression, marital status, pregnancy, political affiliation, or disability.