June 26, 2014
Please join Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery LLP for a complimentary webinar, “Joint Infringement and Indefiniteness After Limelight and Nautilus,” presented by Eric L. Broxterman and Paul B. Henkelmann. The webinar will take place on Thursday, June 26, 2014, at 9:00 am PDT / 10:00 am MDT / 11:00 am CDT / 12:00 noon EDT.
On June 2, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court issued two opinions that continue the Court’s trend of decisions unfavorable to patentees. In Limelight Networks v. Akamai Technologies, the Supreme Court reversed a divided Federal Circuit that had held a party may be liable for inducement of infringement despite the lack of a single direct infringer. As a result, where the performance of a patented method can be divided between two or more actors, infringement may be avoided.
In Nautilus Inc. v. Biosig Instruments Inc., the Court held that the Federal Circuit’s application of its “insolubly ambiguous” standard for claim indefiniteness “breeds lower court confusion” and held that a patent is invalid for indefiniteness if its claims fail to inform with reasonable certainty those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention.
These cases have important implications for businesses, patentees, and practitioners.
During the webinar, we will discuss the following and more:
- Brief overview of joint infringement and indefiniteness precedent
- The Limelight and Nautilus opinions and holdings
- Implications of the Limelight and Nautilus decisions
- Practical considerations going forward
IP Alert | Post-Decision Certificate of Correction Held Inapplicable in IPR ProceedingFebruary 13, 2020
The PTAB recently delivered an order in Emerson Electric v. SIPCO holding that a certificate of correction under 35 U.S.C. § 255 issuing after the PTAB's Final Decision and after the patentee's initial notice of appeal to the Federal Circuit did not apply retroactively. Read more
- Fitch Even Partner Nikki Little Receives 2020 Client Choice AwardFebruary 13, 2020 Read more