In a recent ruling between Limelight and Akamai, the notion of indirect infringement came into question and threatens to affect the way that future infringement suits are viewed in general. Akamai sued Limelight for violating part of its process of delivering content to a user's screen; Limelight, however, claimed that since they were responsible only for parts of the process, whereas their partners were responsible for the rest, they could not be held liable for patent infringement. The district court supported Limelight, as did the court of appeals, but upon review, the Federal Circuit ruled on a 6 to 5 decision in favor of Akamai.
The reason this distinction is so important is that previously, in order to be accused of infringement, you had to have directly copied all the steps involved. However, with this ruling, if you are even partially implicated in infringement, this can cause severe problems. This affects, for example, app developers who create an app which does not directly infringe on some system, but coupled with the phone operating system may actually infringe.
Another reason this is so important is that this affects the scope of infringement which cases now must examine. Previously, only domestic infringement was counted when considering whether one company infringed on another's patents. However, today, because there is no requirement of direct infringement, liability can be given based on activity that happens outside of the United States. This has serious implications for the way that patents are prosecuted that we must definitely consider moving forward.
Source: http://dailycaller.com/2014/05/05/patent-case-could-upset-international-law/
The reason this distinction is so important is that previously, in order to be accused of infringement, you had to have directly copied all the steps involved. However, with this ruling, if you are even partially implicated in infringement, this can cause severe problems. This affects, for example, app developers who create an app which does not directly infringe on some system, but coupled with the phone operating system may actually infringe.
Another reason this is so important is that this affects the scope of infringement which cases now must examine. Previously, only domestic infringement was counted when considering whether one company infringed on another's patents. However, today, because there is no requirement of direct infringement, liability can be given based on activity that happens outside of the United States. This has serious implications for the way that patents are prosecuted that we must definitely consider moving forward.
Source: http://dailycaller.com/2014/05/05/patent-case-could-upset-international-law/
This is such an important case! I have had questions regarding many litigations of app companies who argue that they are only part of processes, therefore did not infringe on anything entirely. I wonder what the key motivating factor for this aggressive move. Many apps today serve as a middle man, either between sellers and buyers or advertisers and users. I think that the result of this populous has caused many indirect infringement, therefore the higher courts feel obligated to address it head on.
ReplyDelete