Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Divided Infringement after the Supreme Court's Decision in <i>Akamai</i>
In Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Techs., Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2111 (2014), the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that inducement of infringement under 35 U.S.C. '271(b) requires an act of direct infringement under '271(a) ' that is, one entity must perform all steps of a claimed method. The Court reversed the Federal Circuit's holding that a defendant can be liable for inducement of infringement if it performs some steps of a patented method and induces a third party to perform the remaining steps.
Importantly, the Supreme Court declined to consider the circumstances under which a party can be liable for direct infringement in a case of “divided infringement,” where multiple actors collectively perform all the steps of a patented method. Under the Federal Circuit's current law, a party can only be so liable if it exercises “direction or control” over the performance of every step of the method by various entities.
The “direction or control” standard for direct infringement is now being challenged on remand in the Akamai case, via a petition for en banc review. Until that issue is conclusively resolved, there will be substantial uncertainty in the law of divided infringement, notwithstanding the Supreme Court's clarification of the requirements for establishing inducement.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.