NDLI: “Limelight v. Akamai” : Decision of the Supreme Court 2 June 2014

Please wait, while we are loading the content...

Limitations and Exceptions as Key Elements of the Legal Framework for Copyright in the European Union – Opinion of the European Copyright Society on the Judgment of the CJEU in Case C-201/13 Deckmyn

“Apprehension of Bias” : Interlocutory Decision of the Enlarged Board of Appeal 25 April 2014 – Case No. R 0019/12

"Apple v. Samsung" : Decision of the Intellectual Property High Court 16 May 2014 – Case No. 2013 (Heisei 25) (ne) 10043

“Samsung v. Apple” : Decision of the Intellectual Property High Court 16 May 2014 – Case No. 2013 (Heisei 25) (ra) 10007 and 10008

“Limelight v. Akamai” : Decision of the Supreme Court 2 June 2014 – Case No. 12-786

“Nautilus v. Biosig” : Decision of the Supreme Court 2 June 2014 – Case No. 13-369

“ACI Adam” : Decision of the European Court of Justice (Fourth Chamber) 10 April 2014 – Case No. C-435/12

“Deckmyn” : Decision of the European Court of Justice (Grand Chamber) 3 September 2014 – Case No. C-201/13

“YouTube’s Work Use Authorisation” (Werknutzungsbewilligung in YouTubes AGB) : Decision of the Supreme Court (Oberster Gerichtshof) 20 May 2015 – Case No. 4Ob82/14h

“Red Cross” : Decision of the Federal Supreme Court (Tribunal fédéral) 20 May 2014 – Case No. 4A_41/2014

Sylvie Nérisson: La gestion collective des droits des auteurs en France et en Allemagne: quelle légitimité?

IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law : Volume 45

IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law : Volume 44

“Limelight v. Akamai” : Decision of the Supreme Court 2 June 2014 – Case No. 12-786

Content Provider	Springer Nature Link
Copyright Year	2015
Abstract	1. The Federal Circuit held in Muniauction that a method’s steps have not all been performed as claimed by the patent (§271(a)) unless they are all attributable to the same defendant, either because the defendant actually performed those steps or because he directed or controlled others who performed them. See 532 F.3d, at 1329–1330. Assuming without deciding that the Federal Circuit’s holding in Muniauction is correct, there has simply been no infringement of the method in which respondents have staked out an interest, because the performance of all the patent’s steps is not attributable to any one person. 2. The Federal Circuit concluded that the “evidence could support a judgment in [the respondents’] favor on a theory of induced infringement” under §271(b). 692 F.3d 1301, 1319 (2012) (per curiam). This was true, the court explained, because §271(b) liability arises when a defendant carries out some steps constituting a method patent and encourages others to carry out the remaining steps – even if no one would be liable as a direct infringer in such circumstances, because those who performed the remaining steps did not act as agents of, or under the direction or control of, the defendant. The Court of Appeals did not dispute that “there can be no indirect infringement without direct infringement,” id., at 1308, but it explained that “[r]equiring proof that there has been direct infringement … is not the same as requiring proof that a single party would be liable as a direct infringer,” id., at 1308–1309. 3. Where there has been no direct infringement, there can be no inducement of infringement under §271(b). The Federal Circuit’s contrary view would deprive §271(b) of ascertainable standards. The Federal Circuit seems to have adopted the view that Limelight induced infringement on the theory that the steps that Limelight and its customers perform would infringe the ’703 patent if all the steps were performed by the same person. But we have already rejected the notion that conduct which would be infringing in altered circumstances can form the basis for contributory infringement, and we see no reason to apply a different rule for inducement. Performance of all the claimed steps cannot be attributed to a single person, so direct infringement never occurred. Limelight cannot be liable for inducing infringement that never came to pass. 4. Respondents, like the Federal Circuit, criticize our interpretation of §271(b) as permitting a would-be infringer to evade liability by dividing performance of a method patent’s steps with another whom the defendant neither directs nor controls. We acknowledge this concern. Any such anomaly, however, would result from the Federal Circuit’s interpretation of §271(a) in Muniauction. A desire to avoid Muniauction’s natural consequences does not justify fundamentally altering the rules of inducement liability that the text and structure of the Patent Act clearly require – an alteration that would result in its own serious and problematic consequences, namely, creating for §271(b) purposes some free-floating concept of “infringement” both untethered to the statutory text and difficult for the lower courts to apply consistently. Our decision on the §271(b) question necessitates a remand to the Federal Circuit, and on remand, the Federal Circuit will have the opportunity to revisit the §271(a) question if it so chooses.
Starting Page	130
Ending Page	131
Page Count	2
File Format	PDF
ISSN	00189855
Journal	IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law
Volume Number	46
Issue Number	1
e-ISSN	21950237
Language	English
Publisher	Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Publisher Date	2015-01-30
Publisher Place	Berlin, Heidelberg
Access Restriction	One Nation One Subscription (ONOS)
Subject Keyword	International IT and Media Law, Intellectual Property Law Liability for inducement
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Case study
Subject	Political Science and International Relations Law

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

“Nautilus v. Biosig” : Decision of the Supreme Court 2 June 2014 – Case No. 13-369

“Matal v. Tam” : Decision of the Supreme Court 29 June 2017 – Case No. 15-1293

“Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley II” : Decision of the Supreme Court 16 June 2016 – Case No. 15-375

“Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment” : Decision of the Supreme Court 22 June 2015 – Case No. 13-720

Corrigendum to: “Trunki” : Decision of the Supreme Court 9 March 2016 – Case No. [2016] UKSC 12

“Impression Products v. Lexmark International” : Decision of the Supreme Court 30 May 2017 – Case No. 15–1189

“Red Cross” : Decision of the Federal Supreme Court (Tribunal fédéral) 20 May 2014 – Case No. 4A_41/2014

“Communication Channel” (Kommunikationskanal) : Decision of the Federal Supreme Court (Bundesgerichtshof) 11 February 2014 – Case No. X ZR 107/12

“DENSO” : Decision of the Supreme Court (Civil Chamber) 14 October 2014 – Case No. 520/2014

“Limelight v. Akamai” : Decision of the Supreme Court 2 June 2014 – Case No. 12-786

Similar Documents

“Nautilus v. Biosig” : Decision of the Supreme Court 2 June 2014 – Case No. 13-369

“Matal v. Tam” : Decision of the Supreme Court 29 June 2017 – Case No. 15-1293

“Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley II” : Decision of the Supreme Court 16 June 2016 – Case No. 15-375

“Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment” : Decision of the Supreme Court 22 June 2015 – Case No. 13-720

Corrigendum to: “Trunki” : Decision of the Supreme Court 9 March 2016 – Case No. [2016] UKSC 12

“Impression Products v. Lexmark International” : Decision of the Supreme Court 30 May 2017 – Case No. 15–1189

“Red Cross” : Decision of the Federal Supreme Court (Tribunal fédéral) 20 May 2014 – Case No. 4A_41/2014

“Communication Channel” (Kommunikationskanal) : Decision of the Federal Supreme Court (Bundesgerichtshof) 11 February 2014 – Case No. X ZR 107/12

“DENSO” : Decision of the Supreme Court (Civil Chamber) 14 October 2014 – Case No. 520/2014

“Limelight v. Akamai” : Decision of the Supreme Court 2 June 2014 – Case No. 12-786