{"id":18316,"date":"2017-03-14T14:00:50","date_gmt":"2017-03-14T14:00:50","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/ipo.org\/?p=18316"},"modified":"2017-03-17T15:24:05","modified_gmt":"2017-03-17T15:24:05","slug":"divided-infringement-since-akamai-en-banc-development-law","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/ipo.org\/index.php\/divided-infringement-since-akamai-en-banc-development-law\/","title":{"rendered":"Divided Infringement Since Akamai En Banc: Development of the Law"},"content":{"rendered":"

Following a lengthy trip to the U.S. Supreme Court and back, in August 2015, the Akamai v. Limelight<\/em> case resulted in the en banc Federal Circuit\u00a0establishing a new standard for finding an infringer guilty of direct infringement even if one did not perform all steps of a patented method. The infringer can now be held liable when one “conditions participation in an activity or receipt of a benefit upon performance of a step or steps of a patented method and establishes the manner or timing of that performance,” in addition to exerting control through traditional means<\/span><\/p>\n

Companies in many industries are acutely interested in how the new legal standard is developing, and there are now signposts. Earlier this year, the Federal Circuit affirmed a finding of divided infringement in\u00a0Eli Lilly v. Teva Parenteral<\/em>. Underlining the broad impact of\u00a0Akamai,\u00a0<\/em>a case that involved software and the Internet, this case involved a method of medical treatment. The Federal Circuit has also ruled for the defendant in two other cases, refusing to remand a case back to the district court because the new standard would not change the outcome and find the pleading of divided infringement too vague. Several district courts have also recently rendered decisions on divided infringement.<\/span><\/p>\n

Our panel will describe and analyze how courts are applying\u00a0Akamai<\/em>.<\/span><\/p>\n

Speakers:<\/span><\/p>\n