Akamai and McKesson: Federal Circuit Rules Divided Infringement May Constitute Actionable Inducement | Practical Law

Akamai and McKesson: Federal Circuit Rules Divided Infringement May Constitute Actionable Inducement | Practical Law

On August 31, 2012, in a sharply divided 6-5 en banc decision, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., overruled its earlier decision in BMC Resources, Inc. v. Paymentech, L.P., 498 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2007), which ruled that there can be no liability for inducing the infringement of a patented method without proof that a single entity was induced to carry out all the steps of that method. As a result of the court's significant turnabout in Akamai, it is now possible to prove a claim of induced infringement under Section 271(b) of the Patent Act by showing that a party induced multiple entities to jointly or collectively perform all the steps of a patented method without any one of them practicing all of those steps.

Akamai and McKesson: Federal Circuit Rules Divided Infringement May Constitute Actionable Inducement

Law stated as at 04 Sep 2012USA (National/Federal)
On August 31, 2012, in a sharply divided 6-5 en banc decision, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., overruled its earlier decision in BMC Resources, Inc. v. Paymentech, L.P., 498 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2007), which ruled that there can be no liability for inducing the infringement of a patented method without proof that a single entity was induced to carry out all the steps of that method. As a result of the court's significant turnabout in Akamai, it is now possible to prove a claim of induced infringement under Section 271(b) of the Patent Act by showing that a party induced multiple entities to jointly or collectively perform all the steps of a patented method without any one of them practicing all of those steps.