The American Intellectual Property Law Association and CEA hailed the...
The American Intellectual Property Law Association and CEA hailed the Supreme Court ruling against Akamai in its patent suit against Limelight Networks, in which the court declared a company can claim patent infringement against another entity only when that entity…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
was involved in every step of the claimed infringement (CD June 3 p4). “The court avoided muddling the current standard for patent law and creating a zone of uncertainty for innovators and entrepreneurs who would no longer be sure what was or was not infringing conduct,” said President Gary Shapiro of CEA, which had joined with CTIA and MetroPCS in filing an amicus brief in the case. “To fulfill its constitutional function of promoting innovation, patent law must be clear, consistent and understandable,” Shapiro said in a CEA news release Monday (http://bit.ly/1n9uTNR). “We commend the Supreme Court for setting aside the lower court decision and restoring common sense to patent infringement law.” The Supreme Court’s ruling in Akamai v. Limelight and an unrelated patent case, Nautilus v. Biosig Instruments, “directed a course correction in the Federal Circuit’s jurisprudence for definite patent claiming and for finding induced infringement,” AIPLA said. “We are pleased that the Supreme Court recognized the need for greater clarity in these areas and moved quickly to provide guidance,” AIPLA President Wayne Sobon said in a statement. Akamai believes “the case is not over” given that the Supreme Court’s ruling remanded the case to the Federal Circuit, a spokesman said. “We look forward to the opportunity to go back to the Court of Appeals and re-present our arguments about why there was direct infringement in this case and why the jury verdict in Akamai’s favor should be reinstated."