Filewrapper-old

Supreme Court Holds Induced Infringement Requires Direct Infringement
June 03, 2014

    This week the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, concluding that an act of direct patent infringement must be present for a claim of inducement of infringement. The decision unanimously held that a defendant may not be liable for inducing infringement of a patent under 35 U.S.C. Section 27(b) when no one has directly infringed the patent under Section 271(a) ....... Read More


    Supreme Court Issues Indefiniteness and Inducement Decisions
    June 02, 2014

      The Supreme Court this week issued its decisions in two much anticipated IP cases. The Court's decision in Limelight Networks v. Akamai Tech. concludes that at least one underlying act of direct patent infringement must be present for a claim of inducement of infringement. In Nautilus v. BioSig the Court instituted a new standard for indefiniteness, supplanting the existing "insolubly ambiguous" st....... Read More


      2014 Supreme Court Cases Relating to Intellectual Property
      January 16, 2014

        On January 10, 2014 the Supreme Court agreed to review a variety of intellectual property cases in the upcoming session, including two patent cases, a copyright case, and a trademark case (including Lanham Act claim). A brief overview of these cases is provided and more detail will be available once decisions are entered by the Court. Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc. (U.S., No. 12-786.) Ques....... Read More


        Exhausting Patent Rights Without a "Sale"
        November 22, 2013

          InLifeScan Scotland, LTD v. Shasta Technologies, LLC, the Federal Circuit clarified the ability of a patnet holder to enforce patent rights in a product it has given away, but not "sold." Defendant Shasta Technologies appealed from a decision of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granting LifeScan Scotland a preliminary injunction. The injunction prohibits Shasta f....... Read More


          New and Useful - July 10, 2013
          July 10, 2013

            · InConvolve v. Compaq Computer the Federal Circuit affirmed in part the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York ruling that Compaq Computer Corp., Seagate Technology, LLC., and Seagate Technology, Inc. did not misappropriate 11 of 15 alleged trade secrets from Convolve, Inc. In addition, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment that 8 claims of U....... Read More


            New and Useful - March 15, 2013
            March 15, 2013

              .... Read More


              Another Billion Dollar Patent Verdict
              January 03, 2013

                Another billion dollar verdict has been handed out in a patent case. Read the verdict in Carnegie Mellon University v. Marvell Technology Group, LTD. here. This latest case continues a string of billion dollar verdicts highlighted by Jonathan Kennedy in the latest edition of MVS Briefs. Carnegie Mellon brought suit alleging infringement of two of its patents, Patent No. 6,201,839 and Patent No. 6,438,180, relat....... Read More


                Court Redefines Knowledge Requirement for Induced Infringement
                June 15, 2011

                  In a recent decision, authored by Justice Alito and joined by all the other Justices but Justice Kennedy, the Supreme Court redefined the knowledge requirement for finding induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). The case—which centered on a patent for an innovative fryer—provided an opportunity for the Court to elucidate what is required for active inducement of infringement: that the par....... Read More


                  Supreme Court to hear case regarding proper standard for proving inducing infringement under 271(b)
                  October 12, 2010

                    In an order today, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a case regarding the necessary intent for inducing infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). The case is Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A., docket number 10-6. The specific question presented is:Whether the legal standard for the state of mind element of a claim for actively inducing infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) is "deliberate indiff....... Read More


                    Compliance with industry standards can be used to show patent infringement
                    September 27, 2010

                      In Fujitsu et al v. Netgear, the Federal Circuit held compliance with an industry standard can be sufficient evidence to establish patent infringement. However, this rule only applies when the only way to adhere to the industry standard is to infringe the asserted patent, such that any product that complies with the standard infringes. In this case, the court determined that a party could comply with the standar....... Read More


                        Newer Posts Older Posts  

                      Purpose

                      The attorneys of McKee, Voorhees & Sease, P.L.C. designed this blog as an informational and educational resource about intellectual property law for our clients, other attorneys, and the public as a whole. Our goal is to provide cutting-edge information about recent developments in intellectual property law, including relevant case law updates, proposed legislation, and intellectual property law in the news.

                      Disclaimer

                      McKee, Voorhees & Sease, P.L.C. provides this blog for general informational purposes only. By using this blog, you agree that the information on this blog does not constitute legal or other professional advice and no attorney-client or other relationship is created between you and McKee, Voorhees & Sease, P.L.C. Do not consider this blog to be a substitute for obtaining legal advice from a qualified, licensed attorney. While we try to revise this blog on a regular basis, it may not reflect the most current legal developments. We consciously refrain from expressing opinions on this blog and instead, offer it as a form of information and education, however if there appears an expression of opinion, realize that those views are indicative of the individual and not of the firm as a whole

                      Connect with MVS

                      Enter your name and email address to recieve the latest news and updates from us and our attorneys.

                      Subscribe to: MVS Newsletter

                      Subscribe to: Filewrapper® Blog Updates

                        I have read and agree to the terms and conditions of McKee, Voorhees & Sease, P.L.C.