By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//June 2, 2014//
By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//June 2, 2014//
U.S. Supreme Court
Civil
Intellectual Property – patents — inducing infringement
A defendant is not liable for inducing infringement under sec. 271(b)when no one has directly infringed under sec. 271(a) or any other statutory provision.
Liability for inducement must be predicated on direct infringement. Aro Mfg. Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co., 365 U. S. 336, 341. Assuming that Muniauction’s holding is correct, respondents’ method has not been infringed because the performance of all of its steps is not attributable to any one person. Since direct infringement has not occurred, there can be no inducement of infringement under §271(b). The Federal Circuit’s contrary view would deprive §271(b) of ascertainable standards and require the courts to develop two parallel bodies of infringement law. This Court’s reading of §271(b) is reinforced by §271(f)(1), which illustrates that Congress knows how to impose inducement liability predicated on noninfringing conduct when it wishes to do so. The notion that conduct which would be infringing in altered circumstances can form the basis for contributory infringement has been rejected, see Deepsouth Packing Co. v. Laitram Corp., 406 U. S. 518, 526–527, and there is no reason to apply a different rule for inducement.
692 F. 3d 1301, reversed and remanded.
12-786 Limelight Networks Inc. v. Akamai Technologies Inc.
Alito, J.