June 26, 2014
Please join Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery LLP for a complimentary webinar, “Joint Infringement and Indefiniteness After Limelight and Nautilus,” presented by Eric L. Broxterman and Paul B. Henkelmann. The webinar will take place on Thursday, June 26, 2014, at 9:00 am PDT / 10:00 am MDT / 11:00 am CDT / 12:00 noon EDT.
On June 2, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court issued two opinions that continue the Court’s trend of decisions unfavorable to patentees. In Limelight Networks v. Akamai Technologies, the Supreme Court reversed a divided Federal Circuit that had held a party may be liable for inducement of infringement despite the lack of a single direct infringer. As a result, where the performance of a patented method can be divided between two or more actors, infringement may be avoided.
In Nautilus Inc. v. Biosig Instruments Inc., the Court held that the Federal Circuit’s application of its “insolubly ambiguous” standard for claim indefiniteness “breeds lower court confusion” and held that a patent is invalid for indefiniteness if its claims fail to inform with reasonable certainty those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention.
These cases have important implications for businesses, patentees, and practitioners.
During the webinar, we will discuss the following and more:
- Brief overview of joint infringement and indefiniteness precedent
- The Limelight and Nautilus opinions and holdings
- Implications of the Limelight and Nautilus decisions
- Practical considerations going forward
- Leveraging Separate IPR Counsel to Maximize Litigation SuccessFitch Even Webinar: November 18, 2021 Read more
IP Alert | USPTO Abused Discretion by Allowing Further Abuse by Ex Parte ReexaminationOctober 22, 2021
On September 29, in In re Vivint, Inc., the Federal Circuit clarified the interplay between petitions for IPR and a subsequent request for ex parte reexamination. Read more