Skip to main content
Advertising

Originally published June 2, 2014 at 9:45 AM | Page modified June 3, 2014 at 7:00 AM

  • Share:
           
  • Comments (0)
  • Print

Court: Company didn't induce patent infringement

A unanimous Supreme Court ruled Monday that a company is not liable for inducing patent infringement if someone other than the company carries out some of the steps leading to infringement.


Reader Comments
Hide / Show comments
@Rex Stout No, that's the one that the honorable President of the United States is appointing qualified judges to... MORE
It should now be abundantly clear to anyone that the best way to protect intellectual property is to avoid the patent... MORE

advertising

WASHINGTON —

A unanimous Supreme Court ruled Monday that a company is not liable for inducing patent infringement if someone other than the company carries out some of the steps leading to infringement.

The justices unanimously ruled Monday that Internet content delivery company Limelight Networks Inc. did not infringe on the patented system for managing images and video owned by rival Akamai Technologies Inc.

Akamai claimed Limelight used some of its patented methods for speeding content delivery, and then illegally encouraged its customers to carry out the remaining steps. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit agreed, but the Supreme Court reversed.

Justice Samuel Alito said all the steps for patent infringement must be performed by a single party. Since there was no direct infringement, Alito said there could be no inducement.

The case drew interest from tech giants including Google and Oracle, which have been sued frequently by so-called "patent trolls," companies that buy patents and force businesses to pay license fees or face costly litigation. They had urged the high court to overturn the Federal Circuit in order to limit the growing number of patent infringement lawsuits.

In another patent case Monday, the high court also unanimously reversed a Federal Circuit decision in a patent dispute over heart rate monitors. Medical device company Biosig Instruments sued exercise equipment maker Nautilus Inc. for allegedly infringing its monitor's design.

Writing for the court, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the appeals court had used the wrong standard in determining that Biosig's patent was not too vague to pass muster. The Supreme Court remanded the case and instructed the appeal court to use a more exacting standard.

The cases are Limelight Technologies, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc., 12-786; and Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 13-369.



Want unlimited access to seattletimes.com? Subscribe now!

News where, when and how you want it

Email Icon

Seattle Sketcher Book

Seattle Sketcher Book

Due to popular demand, the pre-sale price of $29.95 is extended until October 5!

Advertising

Advertising


Advertising
The Seattle Times

The door is closed, but it's not locked.

Take a minute to subscribe and continue to enjoy The Seattle Times for as little as 99 cents a week.

Subscription options ►

Already a subscriber?

We've got good news for you. Unlimited seattletimes.com content access is included with most subscriptions.

Subscriber login ►
The Seattle Times

To keep reading, you need a subscription upgrade.

We hope you have enjoyed your complimentary access. For unlimited seattletimes.com access, please upgrade your digital subscription.

Call customer service at 1.800.542.0820 for assistance with your upgrade or questions about your subscriber status.

The Seattle Times

To keep reading, you need a subscription.

We hope you have enjoyed your complimentary access. Subscribe now for unlimited access!

Subscription options ►

Already a subscriber?

We've got good news for you. Unlimited seattletimes.com content access is included with most subscriptions.

Activate Subscriber Account ►