IP: A boon for patent trolls

The Federal Circuit eliminates joint infringement defense for patent inducement claims of indirect infringement

A Federal Circuit decision in late August has given patent trolls a new, potentially devastating weapon to extract license fees, This weapon that will likely be aimed squarely at companies with a heavy Internet and software-technology focus. In the cases Akamai Tech. v. Limelight Networks and Mckesson Tech. v. Epic Systems, the court ruled en banc that a single party no longer needs to practice all steps of a patented method claim in order to be found liable for indirect infringement. The 6-5 decision narrowly overturned the previous rule, known as the “Joint Infringement Defense,” in the context of indirect infringement based on inducement. As the per curiam opinion put it: “To be clear, we hold that all the steps of a claimed method must be performed in order to find induced infringement, but that it is not necessary to prove that all the steps were committed by a single entity.”

The Federal Circuit was careful to explain that its holding applies only to a “knowing” inducer and expressly declined to apply its decision to “strict liability” direct infringement. Nonetheless, the decision will likely have a sweeping impact. Patent holders that previously would have been forced to focus on perhaps less-than-perfect direct infringement claims will now likely repackage their cases to target inducement. In this manner, the holding provides patent plaintiffs with a potential path around the Joint Infringement Defense, which had been a thorn in their side since the Federal Circuit established it.

Despite the fact that liability for inducement still requires a plaintiff to show that the defendant knew that the induced acts constituted patent infringement, it still significantly reshapes the patent landscape, to the likely benefit of patent trolls and those who sell patents to them. First, the decision increases the value of obtaining broad method claims covering the operation of multi-actor systems, including software systems implemented over the Internet that have large numbers of putative defendants and licensing targets. Second, the decision will likely embolden potential plaintiffs with patent claims of this type, including patent trolls, who will then begin asserting these types of broad method claims even more frequently and aggressively than the all-time highs reached in recent years.

Given these potential ramifications and the close split in the Federal Circuit, this decision will undoubtedly be appealed to the Supreme Court, and this area of law will remain in a closely watched state of flux for the foreseeable future. Therefore, those who use Internet and software technology in their business models should prepare for a newly invigorated barrage of attacks from the patent troll universe.

About the Author
William Lenz

William Lenz

William J. Lenz is a partner at Neal, Gerber & Eisenberg LLP and represents clients in a wide variety of intellectual property matters, with an emphasis on patent, copyright and trademark litigation, strategic planning and clearance, patent prosecution and portfolio management, technology transfer and licensing, and corporate IP transactions. He represents clients across a broad spectrum of industries and technologies, including financial, information technology/data, healthcare, telecommunications, heavy machinery, consumer and industrial electronics, consumer products, and food packaging. He can be reached at wlenz@ngelaw.com.

About the Author
Greg Leighton

Greg Leighton

Greg Leighton is an associate whose practice focuses on all types of intellectual property litigation, as well as patent prosecution and portfolio management.

Comments

InsideScoop Daily eNewsletter

InsideScoop delivers the latest-breaking news affecting in-house counsel. Get the latest business trends, current corporate litigation, labor developments, technology initiatives and more — FREE. Sign up now!

You have been subscribed! You will receive a confirmation email soon.

See the entire list of InsideCounsel eNewsletters.

Resource Library


7 Simple Strategies for Improving Legal Fee Budgeting Certainty

Understanding the legal fee budgeting paradigm and following seven simple strategies will help you control...

Complimentary White Paper: Best Practices for Meeting Critical eDiscovery Challenges

Packed with practical advice, this white paper discusses best practices for meeting eDiscovery challenges across...

Complimentary White Paper "Key Considerations for Collection Methodologies and Resources"

This white paper addresses the need for companies to reevaluate their current collection policies in...

Moving Matters In-House: How Technology Enables Legal In-Sourcing

Strategically shifting more matters to in-house counsel has proven to be an effective strategy to...

5 Ways to Promote Responsible Content Sharing

Find out five ways that organizations can promote responsible sharing of content among employees by...

Reducing the Costs of eDiscovery from Collection to Court!

Predictive coding is only one of many ways organizations can make eDiscovery faster, cheaper and...

Discovery Shifts to the Cloud

Adoption of Cloud computing continues to gain momentum. How can IT and Legal Teams avoid...

Lower Your Total Cost of Ownership

With the deployment of Proofpoint Enterprise Archive, organizations have realized significant cost savings in automating...

Health and Safety Risks of Counterfeits in the Global Supply...

This whitepaper underscores the prevalence of counterfeits within global supply chains across a number of...

Get the facts you need to Help Implement Sound Legal...

This whitepaper will examine the cases that are setting precedents. Download "Legal Hold and Self-Collection:...

View All »

Advertisement. Closing in 15 seconds.