On-Demand   MP3 Audio

Akamai-McKesson: The En Banc Federal Circuit Takes on "Divided Infringement"

Recorded on: Oct. 4, 2012
Running Time: 01:06:25

Running Time Segment Title Faculty Format
[01:06:25] Akamai-McKesson: The En Banc Federal Circuit Takes on "Divided Infringement" Matthew B. Lowrie ~ Foley & Lardner LLP
Robert Silverman ~ Foley & Lardner LLP
On-Demand MP3 MP4

Taken from the briefing Akamai-McKesson: The En Banc Federal Circuit Takes on "Divided Infringement" recorded October, 2012.

Who can be liable for patent infringement, when only the combined actions of multiple entities (but none of them individually) perform the steps required by the patent?

In recent years, such a question of so-called “divided” patent infringement has created complexities for patent owners - most notably in situations involving networked or Internet-driven technologies that depend upon the interaction of multiple entities.

Last year, in an effort to bring some clarity to the matter, the Federal Circuit took up two separate appeals(Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc. and McKesson Technologies, Inc. v. Epic Systems Corp.) for en banc consideration and has now addressed both cases in a new opinion that issued on August 31, 2012.  Significantly, the Federal Circuit held that a party may be liable for inducing the infringement of a patented process or method - even if no single entity, by itself, performs all the steps required by the patent.  However, in focusing on inducement (a form of “indirect” patent infringement) the Federal Circuit’s opinion explicitly avoided the issue of whether or how there might be “direct” patent infringement, when different entities perform different steps of the patent.  This distinction can significantly affect the enforcement of patent rights and the remedies that may be obtained.  Notably, in spite of its attempt to resolve the questions it addressed, the Federal Circuit remains sharply divided - with six judges signing on to the majority opinion, but five judges dissenting (among the two dissenting opinions).

Listen to Matthew B. Lowrie and Robert Silverman of Foley & Lardner LLP as they address the scope and impact of Akamai-McKesson.

Lecture Topics  [Total time 01:06:25]

  • The development of the Federal Circuit’s jurisprudence on “divided infringement”
  • Implications for protecting and enforcing patent rights in prosecution and litigation
  • Possible future developments, in view of matters left open by the Federal Circuit - including the potential for Supreme Court review

Presentation Material

  • Akamai-McKesson: The En Banc Federal Circuit Takes on "Divided Infringement"
    Matthew B. Lowrie,Robert Silverman
  • Akamai-McKesson: The En Banc Federal Circuit Takes on "Divided Infringement"
  • Akamai-McKesson: The En Banc Federal Circuit Takes on "Divided Infringement"
  • Akamai-McKesson: The En Banc Federal Circuit Takes on "Divided Infringement"
    Handout
Speaker(s)
Matthew B. Lowrie ~ Foley & Lardner LLP
Robert Silverman ~ Foley & Lardner LLP

PLI makes every effort to accredit its recorded programs.


PLI MP3s are approved in the following states/territories: AK, CA1, CO, FL, GA, ID*, IL, KS2, ME, MO, MT, NC, ND, NH*, NJ, NM, NV, NY, OR*, PA, TX3, UT, VI, VT, WA, WV, WY. Some exceptions apply. For more information contact PLI.
 

1California: This activity qualifies for participatory credit.

2Kansas: There is a 5.0 credit limit per year for this type of viewing.

3Texas: Considered self-study credit.  There is a 5 credit limit, including specialty credit.

Please note: The State Bar of Arizona does not approve or accredit CLE activities for the Mandatory Continuing Legal Education requirement.

*
PLI will apply for credit upon request.



Running time and CLE credit hours earned are not necessarily the same.
Please be aware that many states do not permit credit for luncheon speakers.

Special Note: In New York, non-traditional course formats including audio and video cassettes are NOT acceptable for transitional CLE credit for the newly admitted attorney within the first two years after their admission to the Bar. Attorneys other than newly admitted may use non-traditional course format, including audio and video cassettes to fulfill their CLE requirements.

IMPORTANT INFORMATION FOR ATTORNEYS SEEKING CLE CREDIT


While listening to the program, be alert to listen for the AUTHORIZATION CODE which has been placed somewhere within the program.  Write the code down; you will be asked for this information when you request CLE credit.
 
Once you’ve completed the program, please go to www.pli.edu and log in. Once you are logged in, your account will be displayed and the available programs will be listed on the left side under the heading "My Online Library".  If you are already logged in, click the link for My Account on the home page to access your Online Library.  Return to the program and click the MCLE Registration button in the top right region of the program window.  A new window will open with a CLE Request form, you will be asked to complete a short evaluation, and fill in the AUTHORIZATION CODE, please complete and submit the form.


Once you click the Submit button, your request for CLE credit will be sent to the CLE department.  PLI will email you a CLE certificate within 48 hours.


If you are unable to successfully log in, please contact our customer service department at 800-260-4754 for assistance.

GENERAL INFORMATION

This product is designed to provide practical and useful information on the subject matter covered.  However, it is sold with the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering legal, accounting or other professional services.  If legal advice or other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent professional should be sought.


If you have already received credit for attending some or the entire program, please be aware that state administrators do not permit you to accrue additional credit for repeat viewing even if an additional credit certificate is subsequently issued.

Print Share Email