Blog March 23, 2020
Inducement liability requires a direct infringer
- Person title
The Supreme Court reverses the Federal Circuit's holding that a defendant that carried out some steps of a method patent, and encouraged customers to carry out remaining steps, could be liable for inducement though neither the defendant nor the customers were liable as direct infringers.
Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc., 572 U.S. ___ (June 2, 2014) (ALITO for the Court, all Justices joining) (CAFC: en banc, per curiam) (D. Mass.: Zobel) (5 of 5 stars)
The Federal Circuit erred when it reasoned that, though no person had violated the provisions of § 271(a), a "direct infringement" sufficient to serve as predicate for inducement liability could nevertheless be held to have occurred. Section 271(b) does not create liability for inducing conduct that does not constitute direct infringement. Under Deepsouth Packing, noninfringing conduct—though infringing if committed in altered circumstances—cannot form the basis for contributory infringement. The same rule applies for inducement.
The Supreme Court rejected Akamai's arguments that it should not matter that no one committed direct infringement, because the harm to patentee was equivalent. Because neither Limelight nor its customers violated § 271(a), no direct infringement was committed, and as such, the patentee's rights had not been violated. Slip op. at 8.
The Supreme Court also rejected Akamai's efforts to analogize § 271(b) to the federal aiding and abetting statute. Applying criminal law's prohibition against divided commission of a crime would be inconsistent with the Patent Act's "cornerstone principle that patentees have a right only to the set of elements claimed in the patents and nothing further." Id. at 9. The Supreme Court also held that, to whatever extent pre-Patent Act law might have permitted liability against Limelight, such was again inconsistent with the Patent Act's overall approach to patent liability. The Supreme Court acknowledged concern that some might use its holding to strategically evade liability through divided performance of method patent steps, but concluded that its holding was required by the Patent Act's text and structure.
Finally, the Supreme Court rejected Akamai's invitation to review current standards for direct infringement under § 271(a), e.g., Muniauction. Such analysis was not contemplated by the petition for certiorari.
The opinions expressed are those of the authors on the date noted above and do not necessarily reflect the views of Fish & Richardson P.C., any other of its lawyers, its clients, or any of its or their respective affiliates. This post is for general information purposes only and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is formed.
Blog November 4, 2019
Legal Alert: Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc. - What Did the Federal Circuit Do?
Blog November 4, 2019
Legal Alert | Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc. — What Did the Federal Circuit Do?
Blog August 17, 2018
En Banc Federal Circuit: Patentee's Service of Complaint, Followed by Voluntary Dismissal, Triggers IPR Clock
Blog October 5, 2017
Legal Alert: Federal Circuit Faults PTO's Approach to Claim Amendments During IPR, But Allows PTO to Try to Fix the Problem
Blog May 16, 2016
Software Claims Directed to Specific Improvements in Computer Operations May be "Non-Abstract"
Blog May 2, 2016
Corporate Residence Definition in Patent Cases Unchanged by Congressional Revisions to Venue Statute; Minimum Contacts Under Beverly Hills Fan Reaffirmed
Blog April 11, 2016
Claims Directed to Detection of Gene Variants Patent-Ineligible, Notwithstanding Mental Activity Requirement
Blog July 27, 2015
Judicial Review Available for Decision that a Patent Qualified for CBM Review; § 101 Review Appropriate in CBM Review
Blog July 8, 2015
Software Claim Addressing Concepts Long Known in Other Fields and Lacking Other Inventive Concept Is Not Patent Eligible
Blog May 16, 2023
ITC Monthly Wrap-Up: April 2023
Blog May 15, 2023
Legal Alert: Minimizing Patent TRO and PI Risk in Europe
Blog May 12, 2023
Texas Patent Litigation Monthly Wrap-Up: April 2023
Blog April 18, 2023
Texas Patent Litigation Monthly Wrap-Up: March 2023
Blog April 10, 2023
ITC Monthly Wrap-Up: March 2023
Article March 16, 2023
Attorneys Kristen McCallion and Darra Loganzo Co-Author World Trademark Review Article "Could AI Require Platforms to Do More to Prevent Infringement?"
Blog March 2, 2023
Texas Patent Litigation Monthly Wrap-Up: February 2023
Blog February 10, 2023
Texas Patent Litigation Monthly Wrap-Up: January 2023
Blog February 7, 2023
ITC Monthly Wrap-Up: January 2023
Blog January 17, 2023
Minnesota Patent Litigation Wrap-Up: Q4 2022