Archive | Divided and Joint Infringement

Does the New Akamai Decision Breach the Logical Framework of Patent Infringement Law?

The Federal Circuit, sitting en banc and in a per curiam opinion, has held a party can be liable as a direct patent infringer under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) even though it did not make, use, sell, or offer to sell every element of the claimed invention. Akamai Tech., Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., No. […]

Continue Reading

Divided Infringement Results in Judgment on Pleadings on Induced Infringement

Finding that a complaint failed to sufficiently allege that the defendant exercised direction or control over all asserted steps of a method patent claim, a court has dismissed a complaint alleging induced infringement under FRCP 12(c). Robert Mankes v. Vivid Seats, Limited, No. 5:13-CV-717-FL, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24327 (E.D.N.C. Feb 26, 2015). Based on […]

Continue Reading

Patent Infringement, Summary Judgment, and Infringement Contentions

A patent infringement defendant’s motion for summary judgment of non-infringement was denied where there were questions of fact concerning whether the defendant directly infringed asserted claims when it tested the accused system, even if it did not directly infringe otherwise. Ameranth, Inc. v. Papa John’s USA, Inc., No. 12-CV-729 JLS (NLS), 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS […]

Continue Reading

Yet Further Clarification on Indirect Divided and Joint Infringement

Under the doctrine of divided infringement, patent claims directed to a slot machine were properly found not to be directly infringed. Aristocrat Tech., Australia v. Int’l. Game Tech., No. 2010-1426 (Fed. Cir. March 13, 2013). However, for the second time in as many weeks, the Federal Circuit remanded a case to a District Court for […]

Continue Reading

Further Clarification on Indirect Divided and Joint Infringement

Holding that a district court improperly applied the doctrine of joint patent infringement with respect to indirect infringement, while agreeing with the lower court’s reasoning concerning direct infringement, the Federal Circuit has vacated a summary judgment of non-infringement. Move, Inc. v. Re-Max Int’l., Inc., No. 2012-1342 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 4, 2013). Claim 1 of U.S. Patent […]

Continue Reading

When Must Joint Patent Infringement Be Plead?

After Yahoo argued that the plaintiff should be required to meet the standard for pleading divided, or joint, patent infringement, a Delaware magistrate judge has recommended denying Yahoo’s motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint for direct patent infringement. Pragmatus AV, LLC v. Yahoo! Inc., No. 11-902-LPS-CJB (D. Del. Nov. 13, 2012). The court believed that […]

Continue Reading

BMC and Muniauction Still Require a Single Actor for Direct Infringement

The Federal Circuit has refused to find direct patent infringement where a single party did not carry out, or at least control, all acts alleged to constitute infringement.  Voter Verified, Inc. v. Premier Election Solutions, Inc., Nos. 2011-1553, 2012-1017, 2011-1559, 2012-1016 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 5, 2012). Perhaps this holding should not be surprising.  However, the […]

Continue Reading

Akamai Forces Reconsideration of Summary Judgment of No Induced Infringement

Having previously granted summary judgment of non-infringement on the plaintiff’s induced infringement claim because no one actor practiced the allegedly infringed claims, the court in Civix-DDI, LLC v. Hotels.com, LP, No. 05 C 6869 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 1, 2012), has now granted a request for reconsideration in light of the Federal Circuit’s en banc decision […]

Continue Reading

Inducement Does Not Require a Single Direct Infringer, Federal Circuit Now Says

Many owners of Internet patents must be rejoicing.  The Federal Circuit, in a 6-5 en banc decision, has overruled its precedent holding “that in order for a party to be liable for induced infringement, some other single entity must be liable for direct infringement.”  The Court explained “that all the steps of a claimed method […]

Continue Reading

Divided Infringement and Non-Infringement

A patent claim for configuring a “satellite” credit card of a main credit card was not infringed directly by any defendant, nor was the claim directly infringed by any third party, and therefore it could not be indirectly infringed.  Spendingmoney LLC v. American Express Co., No. 3:08cv1376 (D. Conn. March 27, 2012).  The claim of […]

Continue Reading

Powered by WordPress. Designed by WooThemes