LexisNexis® Legal Newsroom
Copying Products is Risky Business: Inducing Patent Infringement

Freedom-to-operate 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...

‘State of Mind’ in Patent Cases Debated before High Court

WASHINGTON, 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...

Supreme Court Affirms State of Mind Standard in Induced Infringement Cases

WASHINGTON, 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 affirmative steps...

Brinks Hofer Gilson & Lione: Supreme Court Holds Induced Infringement under Section 271(b) Requires Knowledge, Finds Knowledge Requirement Satisfied by Willful Blindness

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...

Sutherland Legal Alert: Induced Patent Infringement Requires Proof of Knowledge that the Induced Acts Infringe

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 Definition of Active Inducement in Patent Infringement

The 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...

Troutman Sanders LLP: Invisible Dip Tube Patent Suit - Judge Lee applies Therasense and Global-Tech in Summary Judgment Ruling

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 Supreme...

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLPS: Federal Circuit Avoids Central Joint Infringement Question and Articulates New Standard For Inducement

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...

Brinks Hofer Gilson & Lione: Federal Circuit Redefines Law Regarding Induced Infringement of Method Claims

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...

Induced Infringement Does Not Require a Direct Infringer

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...

IP Alert Update: Suprema v. ITC

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...