I wrote:
We will have to see how the Limelight case develops (i.e., is
interpreted in future decisions), but it was issued in a "methods" case
(as distinguished from the familiar case of physical widgets) and is
probably pretty narrow.
Lots of development has already happened.
The Supreme Court sent the case back to the Federal Circuit ("remanded"
it) so the circuit court could reconsider its decision in light of the
Supreme Court's decision. On remand, the Federal Circuit, sitting en
banc, determined that Limelight had directly infringed the Akamai patent
even though it did not perform all of the steps of the patented method
itself, because the step(s) performed by Limelight's customers were
*attributable* to Limelight: see
<http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/9-1372.Opinion.8-11-2015.1.PDF>
Limelight sought Supreme Court review of this decision, but on April 18,
2016 the Supreme Court denied review it (thus leaving the Federal
Circuit decision standing).
There may be a very few cases in which patent holders will be unable to
show that alleged infringers are liable for the steps of method patents
that they do not perform themselves, but probably not very many. So, as
a practical matter, the Supreme Court holding turns out to be
*extremely* narrow. (And, as I noted in my previous post, it applies
only to "method" patents in any case).
Best regards,
Charles
_______________________________________________
time-nuts mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.
