Property Rights in the Supreme Court: Limelight and Nautilus

Intellectual Property Practice Group Courthouse Steps Teleforum

The U.S. Supreme Court recently decided another important pair of property rights cases. Nautilus v. Biosig Instruments concerns definiteness and the scope of patents. In Limelight Networks v. Akamai Technologies, the Court held that a defendant is not liable for inducing infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) when no one has directly infringed under Section 217(a) or any other statutory provision. How important are these decisions? What are their implications?

• Aaron M. Panner, Partner, Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel, P.L.L.C
• Thomas G. Saunders, Partner, WilmerHale

The U.S. Supreme Court recently decided another important pair of property rights cases. Nautilus v. Biosig Instruments concerns definiteness and the scope of patents. In Limelight Networks v. Akamai Technologies, the Court held that a defendant is not liable for inducing infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) when no one has directly infringed under Section 217(a) or any other statutory provision. How important are these decisions? What are their implications?

• Aaron M. Panner, Partner, Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel, P.L.L.C
• Thomas G. Saunders, Partner, WilmerHale

Call begins at 1:00 p.m. Eastern Time.

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.