Friday, June 13, 2014

June 26: Webcast - Joint Infringement and Indefiniteness After Limelight and Nautilus #MCLE

On June 2, the U.S. Supreme Court issued two opinions that continue the Court’s trend of decisions unfavorable to patentees. In Limelight Networks v. Akamai Technologies, the Supreme Court reversed a divided Federal Circuit that had held a party may be liable for inducement of infringement despite the lack of a single direct infringer. As a result, where the performance of a patented method can be divided between two or more actors, infringement may be avoided.
In Nautilus Inc. v. Biosig Instruments Inc., the Court held that the Federal Circuit’s application of its “insolubly ambiguous” standard for claim indefiniteness “breeds lower court confusion” and held that a patent is invalid for indefiniteness if its claims fail to inform with reasonable certainty those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention.
These cases have important implications for businesses, patentees, and practitioners. During the webinar, we will discuss the following:
  • Brief overview of joint infringement and indefiniteness precedent
  • The Limelight and Nautilus opinions and holdings
  • Implications of the Limelight and Nautilus decisions
  • Practical considerations going forward.
Joint Infringement and Indefiniteness After Limelight and Nautilus
June 26, 2014
9:00 am PDT / 10:00 am MDT / 11:00 am CDT / 12:00 noon EDT.
Live webcast; registration required.
Fitch Even attorneys Eric L. Broxterman and Paul B. Henkelmann
Presented by: 
Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery LLP
1 hr CLE CA/IL/NE; Other states may also reward credit upon attendee request.
Free. Registration required.
More Information and Registration

No comments:

Post a Comment