opinions are often a wise business investment when taking a product to market.
A thorough freedom-to-operate analysis includes not only the client's
activities that might directly result in infringement, but also the possibility
that a client may be liable when others directly...
D.C. - The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments February 23rd in a case that
poses the question of what "state of mind" is necessary for a showing of
actively induced patent infringement and whether actual knowledge of the
patent's existence is required ( Global-Tech Appliances...
D.C. - (Mealey's) Although it
found that deliberate indifference to a known risk that a patent exists cannot
itself satisfy the knowledge requirement of Section 271(b) of the Patent Act ,
the U.S. Supreme Court yesterday affirmed a ruling that a petitioner took
On May 31, 2011, the Supreme Court of the United States, on appeal
from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, issued
its decision in Global-Tech Appliances, Inc., et al., v. SEB S.A. ,
No. 10-6 [ enhanced version available to lexis.com subscribers / unenhanced version available...
By Bill Warren , Josh
Curry , and Elizabeth Lester Yesterday the U.S. Supreme Court held in an 8-1 decision that induced
patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) requires proof of knowledge
that the induced acts constitute patent infringement. Global-Tech
Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A....
Supreme Court's decision in G lobal-Tech
Appliances, Inc. v. SEB, S.A , 2011 U.S. LEXIS 4022 (U.S. May 31, 2011) [ enhanced version available to lexis.com subscribers / unenhanced version available from lexisONE Free Case Law ]
clarifies the mental state necessary for a defendant to be liable...
By Dabney Carr
Among his eleven summary judgment rulings in MeadWestvaco's ("MWV") patent infringement suit against Rexam and Valois, Judge
Lee dismissed claims of inequitable conduct under Therasense but
allowed claims of inducement of infringement to survive under the
By Dennis Smith , Martin Bader , Gray Buccigross
On August 31, 2012, the Federal Circuit, sitting en banc, issued a seminal, split decision articulating a new standard for induced infringement. Adjudicating two companion cases, Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. Limelight Networks Inc., and McKesson Technologies...
On August 31, 2012, the Federal Circuit issued its highly anticipated en banc decision regarding Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc. , No. 2009-1372, -1380, -1416, -1417 and McKesson Technologies, Inc. v. Epic Systems Inc. , No. 2010-1291 [enhanced version available to Lexis.com subscribers...
By Eric R. Chad *
In a per curiam opinion, Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc. , 692 F.3d 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2012) [ enhanced version available to lexis.com subscribers ], a narrow majority of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, sitting en banc, revisited the Federal Circuit's...
In August 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit sitting en banc overturned a prior panel decision in Suprema, Inc., and Mentalix, Inc. v. International Trade Commission and Cross Match Technologies, Inc. [subscribers can access an enhanced version of this opinion: lexis.com | Lexis...