By Sebastian Stock
In Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. Limelight Networks, the Federal Circuit broadened potential patent infringement claims by no longer requiring a defendant perform all the steps of a patented method before direct infringement occurs. As the dust settles from Akamai, should courts expect an influx of patent infringement suits.
Akamai Technologies, Inc. began in 2006 when Akamai Technologies, Inc. (“Akamai”) sued Limelight Networks, Inc. (“Limelight”), claiming infringement of claims on its patent related to its content delivery network (“CDN”). A CDN is a platform of proxy servers designed to directly deliver end-user internet content. CDN’s are widely used – they carry nearly half of the world’s internet traffic.
By Kiran Jassal
This month, a Chinese company known as Shenzhen Baili Marketing Services Co. won a regulator’s patent ruling in Beijing against Apple for its rounded-edge smartphone design, stirring fears that Apple’s iPhone 6 would be shut out of the market in China. This ruling comes one short month after Apple lost its fight to keep the “iPhone” trademark exclusive to its products following a Beijing court ruling that a little-known accessories maker could use the trademark for a range of its wallets. And among the many interesting dimensions to this recent patent dispute, Apple’s woes are even more complicated by its struggle to keep confidential designs under wraps as they work their way through Apple’s supply chain.
By Don Wang
As my buddy Vijay reported last November, the Supreme Court granted certiorari for Halo Elecs, Inc. v. Pulse Elects., Inc.., which was consolidated with Stryker Corp. v. Zimmer, Inc., to address whether it should change the current standard for awarding treble damages in patent suits. On February 23, 2016, the high court conducted the oral argument, and the transcript is available here. Continue reading
By Vijay Kumar
The U.S. Supreme Court recently granted certiorari for two patent cases, Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc. and Stryker Corp. v. Zimmer, to decide whether to relax the standard that determines if a district court can award treble damages to a patentee after a finding of infringement.
The legal authority for whether treble damages should be awarded is set forth in 35 § USC 284, which gives the district courts broad discretion to “increase the damages up to three times the amount found or assessed.” To clarify the rule, the Federal Circuit’s In re Seagate decision in 2007 set forth a two-part test, requiring the patentee to show that the infringer: (1) acted despite an objectively high risk of infringement, and (2) knew, or should have known, the risk of infringement. By granting cert, the Supreme Court will review this objective/subjective two-part test to determine its appropriateness. Continue reading
By Vijay Kumar
Another chapter of the Apple/Samsung cell phone wars was written earlier this month when the Federal Circuit ruled that Apple Inc. should have been granted an injunction against Samsung Electronics Co. devices for certain patent-infringing features. The ruling is significant, not only because of its effect on the two biggest cell phone manufacturers, but also because it will likely have a significant effect on a patentee’s ability to get injunctions granted. Samsung is appealing the decision to a Federal Circuit en banc panel.
The technology at issue dealt with features of mobile phones including spelling correction, linking phone numbers in a document to a dialer, and slide-to-unlock features. This appeal stems from a May 2014 district court decision from the Northern District of California, in which Apple was awarded $120 million in damages, but denied an injunction. Continue reading