• Home
  • About
    • Client Reviews
    • Patent Samples
    • Accolades
    • About Firm
    • Technologies
    • FAQs
  • Services
    • Patents
      • Patent Consultation
      • Patent Search Service
      • Patent Application Service
      • Patent Prosecution
      • Utility Patents
      • Design Patents
      • Patent Defense
      • Patent Enforcement
      • Working with In-House Attorneys
    • Trademarks
      • Trademark Search
      • Trademark Application Services
      • Trademark Prosecution
      • Trademark Enforcement
      • Trademark Defense
    • Licensing
    • Worldwide IP
    • Risk Management
    • Due Diligence
  • Industries
    • Browse Patent Samples
    • Automotive Patents
    • Construction Patents
    • Consumer Products Patents
    • Electronics Patents
    • Food, Beverage, & Other Culinary Patents
    • Manufacturing Patents
    • Medical Products & Devices Patents
    • Optics Patents
    • Software & App Patents
    • Tools & Equipment Patents
  • Learning Resources
    • First-Time Inventor?
    • Why Patent Your Invention in a Bad Economy?
    • Videos on Patents
    • Search 180+ Articles
      • Patent process
        • Overview of Patent Process
          • Patent process timeline and major milestones
          • Patent Process: Invention to Patent Granted (Simplified)
          • Patent process, overall steps and procedures
        • Overview of the examination process within the USPTO
          • Highs and lows of securing patent protection for your invention
          • What is the Patent Office procedure after filing a patent application?
        • Benefits of a Patent Search
          • What is a patent search and How to do it?
        • Patent attorneys, agents and the USPTO can help with the patent process
        • USPTO Website
      • Invention Agreements
        • What is an NDA and when to use them?
        • How to use a contract to protect your invention?
        • Working with others without losing your IP rights
        • Patent Assignments for Independent Contractors
        • Losing Invention Rights When Hiring or Collaborating with Others
        • Avoid Problems: Get an Invention Assignment Agreement
      • Protect Inventions
        • Misconceptions of Provisional Patent Applications
        • Do you need to get your patent attorney to sign an NDA?
        • Can a confidentiality agreement protect me like a patent application?
        • Four types of intellectual property to protect your idea and how to use them
          • Overview of Patents and Intellectual Property
          • Patent protection benefits and why every inventor should consider getting one
          • 8 tips to successfully protect your idea
          • Benefits of Patent Protection
          • Best uses for design patents
        • Reasons to only market your invention after securing patent pendency
          • Dangers of 1 yr grace period under first-inventor-to-file system
          • File a patent application before telling others about the invention
        • Risks and benefits of securing software patent protection
          • Strategy to overcome patentable subject matter rejection
        • Pros and cons of filing a continuation-in-part application
          • What is a continuation patent application?
      • How Patent Applications Work: the Basics
        • How to respond to an office action?
        • Request for non-publication of a patent application
        • Anatomy of a Patent Document
        • How to write a broad patent application?
        • Design patents: pros and cons
      • Patent costs
        • How much does it cost to get a utility patent?
        • Provisional Patent Application: Cheap Alternative?
        • Patent Cost Framework and cash flow
        • Provisional patent application: a cheap option?
        • Cheap provisional patent applications
      • Patent infringement
        • Basics of writing a patent claim for a patent application
        • Patent Marking: Everything you wanted to know
        • Avoiding Patent Infringement
        • Can I Copy My Competitor’s Product?
        • Can I Copy My Competitor’s Product? (Design Patent)
      • Worldwide patents
        • Pros and cons of securing worldwide patent protection and their steps
        • Foreign patent filing to secure protection in other countries
      • Responding to Office Actions
        • Overview of Office Actions
      • Trademarks
        • Trademark Registration: common law, state and federal
        • How to obtain a federal trademark registration?
        • How to select a trademark?
          • Protect your idea when pitching to an investor, potential licensee, or buyer
  • Schedule Consultation
  • Contact

Top-Rated Orange County Patent Lawyer | Helping Inventors in Orange County, Los Angeles County & Beyond | OC Patent Lawyer, Irvine CA

Orange County Patent Attorney

(949) 433-0900
You are here: Home / Patent Infringement / Direct Infringement / Divided direct patent infringement based on attribution

Divided direct patent infringement based on attribution

October 19, 2015 by James Yang

attributionIn Akamai v. Limelight (Fed. Cir. Aug. 13, 2015), the Federal Circuit sitting en banc provided a comprehensive definition of direct patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. §271(a) for a method claim when the steps of the method claim are performed by two or more actors, or also known as divided patent infringement.

For a discussion of the litigation history of Akamai v. Limelight, click here and here. Briefly, the prior appeal defined the type of direct patent infringement to hold the alleged infringer liable for indirect patent infringement. In Akamai, the Federal Circuit shifted the discussion away from indirect patent infringement to direct patent infringement. The opinion is solely directed to the standard for holding an alleged infringer liable for direct patent infringement when there are two or more actors.  Since direct patent infringement requires a single entity to perform all of the steps of a method claim to constitute infringement, Akamai provides the standard of infringement when the method steps of a claim of a patent are divided between two or more actors and one of the actors should be counted as being the single entity liable for patent infringement.

Under Akamai, indirect patent infringement under §271(a) occurs when all of the steps of a claimed method are attributable to a single entity. The Federal Circuit defines the standard for direct patent infringement where the steps of the claimed method are divided between two or more actors to be attribution. An entity is responsible for the performance of a method step by another if such entity directs or controls the other entity’s performance or where the two actors form a joint enterprise.

To determine whether an entity directs or controls the acts of another entity, the Federal Court instructed the courts to look to general principles of vicarious liability. The Federal Circuit noted that vicarious liability is not a perfect analog to divided direct patent infringement since vicarious liability determines when an entity is liable for the acts of another. In the divided direct patent infringement cases, vicarious liability is not determining when an entity is liable for the acts of another. Rather, the principles of vicarious liability are being used to determine when the acts of another should be attributed to the alleged infringer even though that other entity is not liable for patent infringement.

Previously, the Federal Circuit held that the acts of another are attributed to the alleged infringer if the other entity is an agent of the alleged infringer or the alleged infringer has contracted with the other entity to perform one or more steps of a claimed method.

The court further concludes that if the alleged infringer conditions participation in an activity or receipt of a benefit upon performance of a step or steps of the patented method and establishes the manner and timing of that performance then the acts of the other entity are attributable to the alleged infringer. The alleged infringer would be deemed to have performed all of the steps since the steps performed by the other entity are attributed to the alleged infringer.

The standard for determining whether the alleged infringer can be held liable for direct patent infringement even though the alleged infringer does not perform all of the method steps recited in the claim of the patent is attribution.  If the method steps which the alleged infringer does not perform were performed by another entity and such performance by the other entity of the method steps can be attributed to the alleged infringer, then the alleged infringer is liable for direct patent infringement even though the steps were divided and performed by two different entities.

The court now provides three different ways of showing attribution, namely, (1) principal-agent relationships, (2) contractual relationships, and (3) where the alleged infringer conditions participation and establishes the manner and timing of performing the steps by another entity.

The Federal Circuit also explained that each party of a joint venture can be charged with direct patent infringement even though neither one performed all of the method steps in the claim of a patent if collectively the parties to the joint venture performed all of the method steps in the claim of the patent. The court provided various factors to determine when a joint venture is formed (see pages 5 and 6 of the attached Akamai v. Limelight (Fed. Cir. August 13, 2015) opinion).

In Akamai v. Limelight, Limelight provided content distribution network (CDN) services for various websites. However, to take advantage of the content distribution network services of Limelight, Limelight offloaded certain steps to the customer. In order to take advantage of Limelight’s content distribution network services, Limelight conditioned the customer’s use of its content delivery network services upon the performance of various steps as dictated by Limelight. Limelight also established the manner and timing of the customer’s performance. For example, upon establishing the contract between Limelight and customers, Limelight sent customers a welcome letter instructing the customer on how to use Limelight’s service. Limelight assigned a technical account manager to lead the customer in the implementation of Limelight’s services. If Limelight’s customers did not follow the precise steps dictated by Limelight, then they would not be able to take advantage of Limelight’s content distribution network.

The Federal Circuit described Limelight’s actions as:

“In sum, Limelight customers do not merely take Limelight guidance and act independently on their own. Rather, Limelight establishes the manner and timing of its customer’s performance so that customers can only avail themselves of the service upon their performance of the method steps.”

In the above paragraph, the Federal Circuit distinguishes between providing guidance and allowing the customer to act independently on their own versus the comprehensive extent that Limelight was involved in the customer’s performance of the steps in order to take advantage of Limelight’s CDN services.

More litigation would be necessary to understand what it means to merely provide guidance and allow the customers to act independently on their own so as to avoid liability for divided direct patent infringement.  Hence, although the Federal Circuit has broadened liability for divided direct patent infringement with Akamai, the Federal Circuit has indicated that not all steps that are offloaded to customers can be attributed to the alleged infringer or provider and thus, mitigating the potential exposure to liability for divided direct patent infringement.

I invite you to contact me with your patent questions at (949) 433-0900.  Please feel free to forward this article to your friends. As an Orange County Patent Attorney, I serve Orange County, Irvine, Los Angeles, San Diego, and surrounding cities.

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn

Author

James Yang is a patent attorney. For more than 16 years, James Yang has been representing clients to secure patent protection for their inventions and register trademarks to protect their brands. If you need help, call him at (949) 433-0900. Read More…

Popular Posts

  • Patent process overview
  • Patent process explained
  • How much does a patent cost?
  • Why patent your invention in a bad economy?

Patent Book

Navigating the Patent System - new book by Orange County patent attorney, James Yang

Navigating the Patent System: Learn the patent process and strategies to protect your invention

Read for Free
Buy at Amazon

RECEIVE PATENT ARTICLES

Stay up to date on major changes and get tips on the patent process.

We respect your privacy.

Popular Posts

Patent process overview
Patent process explained
How much does a patent cost?
Trademark process and costs
Patent process and costs

 

Services

Patent Consultations
Patent Searches
Patent Applications
Utility Patents
Design Patents
Patent Prosecution Services
Patent Defense Services
Patent-Law Counsel for In-House Attorneys
Trademark Overview
Trademark Search Services
Trademark Application Services
Trademark Prosecution Services
Trademark Enforcement Services
Trademark Defense Services
See All Services

Industries

Automotive Patents
Consumer Products Patents
Culinary Patents
Manufacturing Patents
Medical Patents
Optics Patents
Software & App Patents
See All Industries

Contact

James Yang
OC Patent Lawyer
2372 Morse Ave., Suite #178
Irvine, CA 92614
Tel: (949) 433-0900

Connect

  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn

Sitemaps

Sitemap: Pages | Sitemap: Posts

Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

By accessing this blog, you agree that no attorney-client relationship is formed except by a subsequent written retainer agreement. Also, you agree to not send confidential information unless directed by me to do so. The information posted on this blog is legal information and not legal advice.
Complete Terms of Use
Complete Privacy Policy

ADA Compliance

OC Patent Lawyer aims to ensure that its services are accessible to people with disabilities.
Accessibility Statement

Service Area

From our office in Irvine, California, we serve clients from all areas within Orange County and Los Angeles County, California.

© 2023 · James Yang, Your Entrepreneur and Mid-Size Business Patent Attorney