Sunday, January 23, 2011

Blog posts on Federal Circuit's joint infringement opinion Akamai v. Limelight

Direct infringement generally requires a single infringer, though joint infringement is a theoretical possibility. Joint infringement has always been a tough theory to win on, and the Federal Circuit just made it harder. In the recent decision Akamai vs. Limelight, the Federal Circuit held that there can "only be joint infringement when there is an agency relationship between the parties who perform the method steps or when one party is contractually obligated to the other to perform the steps."

I found a couple of interesting posts from other bloggers that explore the practical implications of Akamai. Most joint infringement cases I'm aware of relate to software, but PharmaPatents takes a different angle and looks here at how Akamai might be applied to diagnostic medical methods. Gametime IP makes the case here that divided infringement is a concern for system/apparatus claims as well as method claims like those at issue in Akamai.

1 comment:

  1. Thanks for the shout out.

    The CAFC's latest installment on joint infringement issued last week. See Friday's post on Centilion v Qwest.

    Although the system claim was found to have a single actor direct infringer, it was the defendant's customer. The defendant was held specifically not to directly infringe because part of the infringing system was controlled by the customer (i.e. a personal computer).

    Qwest may still be liable for inducing its customers to infringe, which is one of the issues on remand.