Media Coverage
Source: Law360
Media Coverage
06.02.14
Patrick Doody, an intellectual property partner in Pillsbury’s Northern Virginia office, commented on the U.S. Supreme Court’s rulings on two recent intellectual property cases.
In Nautilus Inc. v. Biosig Instruments Inc., the court ruled that the Federal Circuit's long-standing precedent for proving a patent indefinite allowed for too much ambiguity.
Doody commented, “The Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in Nautilus eases the burden on alleged infringers to prove invalidity under 35 USC Section 112, second paragraph, and opens the door to more indefiniteness challenges not only in district court, but in post grant proceedings. This decision continues the recent trend of the Supreme Court taking cases on appeal where it believes the Federal Circuit applies the incorrect standard.”
In Limelight Networks Inc. v. Akamai Technologies Inc., the Supreme Court set aside a Federal Circuit decision that lowered the standard for proving induced infringement, ruling that induced infringement can be found only when one party performs every, not any, step.
“The Limelight decision will make it more difficult for patent owners to prove induced infringement in a divided infringement case,” said Doody. “While the effect of this decision may decrease the number of patent infringement suits, it could increase the number of declaratory judgment actions.”