LIFENET HEALTH v. LIFECELL CORPORATION (Fed. Cir. 2016) (P) – Functional limitations can be structural even when recited as a negative limitation

by Steve Driskill | Sep 16, 2016 | [sub] direct, Infringement

Functional limitations can be structural even when recited as a negative limitation. Here, for example, a plasticizer claimed as being “not removed from” an internal matrix prior to transplantation into a human was found to be directly infringed by a competing product...

SUPREMA, INC. v. ITC (Fed. Cir. 2015) (NP) – Failure to investigate similar patent discovered during review of another patent may show willful blindness

by Steve Driskill | Sep 14, 2015 | [sub] indirect, Infringement

Willful blindness for establishing induced infringement under § 271(b) may be shown by a deliberate failure to further investigate a patent discovered during review of another patent and having similarities in content, inventorship, and ownership. Here, for example,...

AKAMAI TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. LIMELIGHT NETWORKS, INC. (Fed. Cir. 2015) (P, en banc) – Direct infringement can be established by user steps performed in a prescribed manner to receive a benefit

by Steve Driskill | Aug 13, 2015 | [sub] divided, Infringement

Direct infringement under § 271(a) may be established even absent a principal-agent relationship, a contractual arrangement, or a joint enterprise, when an alleged infringer conditions participation or a benefit upon performance of a step and sets the manner or timing...

SUPREMA, INC. v. ITC (Fed. Cir. 2015) (P, En Banc) – Claims capturing later induced infringement may still be sufficient to support ITC exclusion order

by Steve Driskill | Aug 10, 2015 | [sub] indirect, Infringement

An exclusion order from the ITC based on a violation of 19 U.S.C. § 1337(a)(1)(B)(i) may be predicated on a theory of induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) where direct infringement does not occur until after importation of the articles the exclusion order...

COMMIL USA, LLC v. CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. (S. Ct. 2015) (P) – Even a good-faith belief of invalidity is not a defense to a claim of induced infringement

by Steve Driskill | May 26, 2015 | [sub] indirect, Infringement

Even a good-faith belief of invalidity is not a defense to a claim of induced infringement. Here, for example, a major supplier of wireless access points and controllers was found to be subject to liability for providing infringement-inducing products to consumers...

AKAMAI TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. LIMELIGHT NETWORKS, INC. (Fed. Cir. 2015) (P) – Direct infringement under § 271(a) does not incorporate joint tortfeasor liability

by Steve Driskill | May 13, 2015 | [sub] divided, Infringement

Absent a principal-agent relationship, a contractual arrangement, or a joint enterprise, direct infringement under § 271(a) does not incorporate joint tortfeasor liability. Here, for example, although the accused infringer maintained servers that performed part of the...