Supreme Court Reverses Federal Circuit on Inducement of Infringement

June 3, 2014 Advisory

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday limited the instances in which a party might be liable for inducing patent infringement. In a decision titled Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc., the Court held that a party cannot be liable for inducing patent infringement unless direct infringement of the patent has occurred. The Court’s decision reversed the Federal Circuit’s rule, which had held that liability for inducement may exist even if there is no direct infringement.

As the number of issued patents with computer-based method claims increases, the ease with which these claims are enforced will become increasingly important. In order to infringe a method claim in a patent, one party must directly infringe—or perform—every step of the patented method. However, in 2012, the en banc Federal Circuit had held that a defendant who performed some steps of a method claim and encouraged others to perform the rest could be liable for inducement of infringement, even if no one entity directly infringed (i.e. performed each and every step) of the method claimed in the patent. Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., 692 F.3d 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2012).Simply put, if an Internet Service Provider (ISP) and a customer shopping on a company’s website hosted by that ISP combine to perform all of the steps of a method, the ISP could be liable for inducing patent infringement.

The unanimous Supreme Court reversed this holding and found that a defendant cannot be liable for inducing infringement of a patent when no one has directly infringed the patent. The Court explained that inducement of a method claim can only occur where the performance of the claimed steps can be attributed to a single person. In so holding, the Court limited when a party may be liable for inducing infringement of a patent. The Court noted the “concern” about permitting a would-be infringer to evade liability by simply dividing performance of a method patent’s steps with another entity that the would-be infringer does not direct or control. However, the Court invited the Federal Circuit to revisit its rule that liability for direct infringement requires the infringing acts to be attributable to a single party. Patentees will do well to pay attention to the Federal Circuit’s opinion on remand, as it seems likely to reconsider its case law regarding direct infringement of method claims where the method steps are performed by multiple actors. In the meantime, patentees will have a significantly more difficult task to prove inducement of infringement in situations involving methods performed by multiple parties.

Contact Us
  • Worldwide
  • Boston, MA
  • Denver, CO
  • Edwardsville, IL
  • Jefferson City, MO
  • Kansas City, MO
  • Las Vegas, NV
  • New York, NY
  • Philadelphia, PA
  • Princeton, NJ
  • Salt Lake City, UT
  • St. Louis, MO
abstract image of world map
Boston, MA
225 Franklin Street
26th Floor
Boston, MA 02110
Google Maps
Boston, Massachusetts
Denver, CO
4643 S. Ulster St.
Suite 800
Denver, CO 80237
Google Maps
Denver, Colorado
Edwardsville, IL
115 N. Second St.
Edwardsville, IL 62025
Google Maps
Edwardsville, Illinois
Jefferson City, MO
3405 W. Truman Boulevard
Suite 210
Jefferson City, MO 65109
Google Maps
Jefferson City, Missouri
Kansas City, MO
2345 Grand Blvd.
Suite 1500
Kansas City, MO 64108
Google Maps
Kansas City, Missouri
Las Vegas, NV
3770 Howard Hughes Parkway
Suite 200
Las Vegas, NV 89169
Google Maps
Las Vegas, Nevada
New York, NY
919 Third Ave., 37th Floor
New York, NY 10022
Google Maps
New York City
Philadelphia, PA
2005 Market Street
29th Floor, One Commerce Square
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Google Maps
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Princeton, NJ
100 Overlook Center
Second Floor
Princeton, NJ 08540
Google Maps
Princeton, New Jersey
Salt Lake City, UT
201 South Main Street
Suite 2400
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
Google Maps
Salt Lake City, Utah
St. Louis, MO
7700 Forsyth Blvd.
Suite 1800
St. Louis, MO 63105
Google Maps
St. Louis, Missouri