In Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., Nos. 09-1372, -1380, -1416, -1417 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 31, 2012), and McKesson Technologies, Inc. v. Epic Systems Corp., No. 10-1291 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 31, 2012) (en banc), the Federal Circuit in a per curiam opinion reversed and remanded both cases in light of the Court’s holding 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.” Slip op. at 10. In this respect, overruling BMC Resources, Inc. v. Paymentech, L.P., 498 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2007), and its progeny of cases, the Court held that “[i]f a party has knowingly induced others to commit the acts necessary to infringe the plaintiff’s patent and those others commit those acts, there is no reason to immunize the inducer from liability for indirect infringement simply because the parties have structured their conduct so that no single defendant has committed all the acts necessary to give rise to liability for direct infringement.” Slip op. at 16. In separate, lengthy opinions, Judge Newman and Judges Linn, Dyk, Prost, and O’Malley dissented from the majority opinion.
See this month’s edition of Last Month at the Federal Circuit for a full summary of this decision.