United States: Key Developments In U.S. Patent Law

In this newsletter, we provide an overview of the significant developments in patent litigation in the United States during the first six months of 2014.

Fee Shifting

Supreme Court Lowers Standard for Awarding Fees to a Prevailing Party

Since 1952, courts in the United States have had the authority to award attorney's fees to the prevailing party in "exceptional" patent infringement cases. This authority, which is codified at 35 U.S.C. § 285, is a departure from the typical rule in U.S. courts that each party must pay its own fees.

In 2005, the Federal Circuit held in Brooks Furniture that a case is only "exceptional" under § 285 if it involves "material misconduct" or was both objectively and subjectively baseless. As a result of this high standard, it became nearly impossible for a prevailing party to obtain fees under § 285. On April 28, 2014, the Supreme Court decided two cases which changed the rules for fee shifting in patent cases. In a 9-0 decision in Octane Fitness v. Icon Health, the Supreme Court held that the Brooks Furniture test was "unduly rigid." Instead, the Court held that a case is "exceptional" under § 285 when it is "uncommon," "rare," or "not ordinary." The Court further explained that an "exceptional" case "is simply one that stands out from others with respect to the substantive strength of a party's litigating position (considering both the governing law and the facts of the case) or the unreasonable manner in which the case was litigated."

In a companion case, Highmark Inc. v Allcare, the Supreme Court held that determinations of "exceptional cases" by the district courts should be reviewed on appeal under an abuse of discretion standard. The Court thus rejected the practice of reviewing such awards de novo.

The Supreme Court has now sent a clear message to District Courts that: (i), fees should be shifted in more cases and, (ii), that District Court decisions will not be subject to de novo second-guessing by the Federal Circuit. It remains to be seen, however, whether the district courts will respond to the Supreme Court's guidance by awarding fees in a larger number of cases given the historical reluctance to award fees.

Divided Infringement

Supreme Court Holds that a Defendant Cannot Be Liable for Inducing Another Party to Infringe in the Absence of Direct Infringement

The provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 271 provide for three types of infringement. Direct infringement occurs under § 271(a) when a person makes, uses, offers to sell, sells, or imports a patented invention. Induced infringement occurs under § 271(b) when a person "actively induces" another person to infringe a patent. Contributory infringement occurs under § 271(c) when a person offers to sell, sells, or imports a component that is a material part of, and especially made for use in, a product that infringes a patent.

The issue presented to the Supreme Court in the Limelight case was whether a defendant may be liable for inducing infringement of a method claim when no one has directly infringed the claim.

The patent at issue in Limelight Networks (U.S. Patent No. 6,108,703) claimed a method for delivering electronic data to Internet users by way of a "content delivery network" or "CDN." The patented method required performance of several steps, including the designation ("tagging") of portions of a Web site (e.g., video or music files) to be hosted on servers accessible to Internet users. Defendant Limelight operated a CDN and performed several steps of the patented method. Limelight, however, did not "tag" the content to be hosted on its servers. Rather, Limelight's customers (proprietors of Web sites) designated the content that they wished to have stored on Limelight's servers.

Although, Limelight provided instructions and technical assistance to its customers regarding how to tag content, Limelight did not direct or control the tagging under the Federal Circuit's decision in Muniauction, Inc. v. Thomson Corp., 532 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2008), where the court decided that a person can only be liable for direct infringement of a method claim if the person performs each and every step of the method or exercises direction or control over a third party that performs the steps. Thus, where the steps of a patented method are independently performed by two or more parties, there is no direct infringement under § 271(a). As a result, the Federal Circuit held that there was no direct infringement under § 271(a). Despite finding that neither Limelight nor its customers directly infringed the '703 patent, an en banc panel of the Federal Circuit held that Limelight could nonetheless be liable for induced infringement under § 271(b). The Federal Circuit reasoned that even if a single party cannot be held liable for direct infringement, courts may still hold that a predicate act of direct infringement occurred (i.e., though the combined actions of multiple parties) for the purposes of induced infringement under § 271(b).

In a unanimous decision delivered by Justice Alito, the Supreme Court reversed the Federal Circuit's en banc decision. The Supreme Court made clear that a party cannot be liable for induced infringement in the absence of direct infringement. "[I]n this case, performance of all the claimed steps cannot be attributed to a single person, so direct infringement never occurred. Limelight cannot be liable for inducing infringement that never came to pass." The Supreme Court also refused to accept the Federal Circuit's attempt to create "two parallel bodies of infringement law" that would have separated the analysis of liability for direct infringement under § 271(a) from the analysis of the existence of a predicate act of direct infringement for the purposes of § 271(b). The Supreme Court explained that the test is the same in both circumstances: "the reason Limelight could not have induced infringement under § 271(b) is not that no third party is liable for direct infringement; the problem, instead, is that no direct infringement was committed."

Perhaps the most interesting portions of the Supreme Court's decision in Limelight Networks were the repeated references to the "direction and control" standard for direct infringement under Muniauction. The Supreme Court noted that it was "[a]ssuming without deciding that the Federal Circuit's holding in Muniauction is correct." The Court, however, also noted that the Muniauction decision gives rise to an "anomaly" that could "permit[] a would-be infringer to evade liability by dividing performance of a method patent's steps with another whom the defendant neither directs nor controls." The Court "acknowledge[d]" the concern and noted that "on remand, the Federal Circuit will have the opportunity to revisit the § 271(a) question if it so chooses."

It is unclear whether the Federal Circuit will take the Supreme Court's comments concerning Muniauction as an invitation to weaken the "direction and control" standard, thereby making it easier to find direct infringement based on the combined actions of multiple parties. If so, Limelight's victory may be short-lived.

Patent Eligibility

Supreme Court Hears Argument on Test for Patent Eligibility

Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, a person may obtain a patent on "any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof." Despite the broad wording of § 101, courts have long recognized that certain subject matter is not eligible patenting, including laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas.

For many years, the Federal Circuit applied the "machine or transformation" test to determine whether a patent was directed to eligible subject matter under § 101. Under that test, a claimed invention was deemed patent-eligible if, (i), it was tied to a particular machine or apparatus, or, (ii), it transformed a particular article into a different state or thing. In 2010, however, the Supreme Court held in Bilski v. Kappos that the "machine or transformation" test is not the exclusive test for patent eligibility. In that case, the Court held that a process does not become patent-eligible merely because it is performed by a computer. In particular, the Court held that the concept of using a computer to hedge risks in the energy market was a patent-ineligible abstract idea.

In 2013, the Federal Circuit issued an en banc decision in CLS Bank v. Alice Corp. addressing whether patent claims directed to the computer automation of escrow services were eligible for patenting under § 101. As in Bilski, the Federal Circuit held that a method that merely sets forth "generic computer automation" of an abstract concept (using a computer to implement an escrow arrangement) was not sufficient under § 101. The Judges of the Federal Circuit, however, were split on whether a system claim incorporating certain computer components (e.g., a "data storage unit" and a "communications controller") would satisfy § 101. The Federal Circuit's decision has lead many commentators to fear that computer software – which, at some level, typically involves automation of an abstract concept – will no longer be eligible for patenting.

In December 2013, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in the CLS Bank case to consider "whether claims to computer-implemented inventions – including claims to systems and machines, processes, and items of manufacture – are directed to patent-eligible subject matter within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 101." Oral argument was held on March 31, 2014. Based on questions asked during the argument, the Supreme Court appeared likely to affirm the finding that the claims at issue in CLS Bank were not eligible for patenting. The Supreme Court, however, also appeared to struggle with where to draw the line between a patent eligible software and ineligible abstract ideas.

Definiteness Standard

Supreme Court Sets "Reasonable Certainty" as the Standard for Definiteness

The recent trend of the U.S. Supreme Court overturning the nation's patent appeal court continued with the Nautilus decision. In Nautilus, the Supreme Court threw out the Federal Circuit's "insolubly ambiguous" standard for determining whether claims are invalid for indefiniteness.

Under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 2, patent claims must "particularly point[] out and distinctly claim[] the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention." This is referred to as the "definiteness" standard. A claim that fails to satisfy the definiteness standard is invalid and may not be enforced.

The Federal Circuit has held that claims are indefinite under § 112 ¶ 2 when they are "not amenable to construction" or are "insolubly ambiguous." In 2013, the Federal Circuit applied this standard in the case of Biosig Instruments, Inc. v. Nautilus, Inc. The claim at issue in Nautilus concerned a heart rate monitor for exercise equipment that used two electrodes in a "spaced relationship" with each other. In prior ex parte reexamination proceedings, the patent owner argued that the "spaced relationship" was a key limitation that distinguished the claimed invention from dual-electrode monitors found in the prior art. In the District Court proceedings, however, the patent owner argued that a "spaced relationship" could be any "defined relationship" between the electrodes. Based on that construction, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York found that the "spaced relationship" limitation was indefinite under § 112 ¶ 2 because it would not disclose the bounds of the claimed invention to someone of skill in the art. The Federal Circuit reversed, holding that it was possible to assign a meaning to "spaced relationship" and therefore the limitation was not indefinite. In particular, the Federal Circuit held that the "spaced relationship" would necessarily be close enough so that the electrodes could fit within a person's hand. The Federal Circuit also noted that a person of skill in the art could perform testing to determine the ideal spaced relationship.

In a unanimous decision delivered by Justice Ginsburg, the Supreme Court rejected the "insolubly ambiguous" and "amenable to construction" tests that the Federal Circuit applied in Biosig. The Court noted that those standards "lack the precision that § 112 ¶ 2 demands" and therefore "can breed lower court confusion." The Court also explained that "[i]t cannot be sufficient [under § 112 ¶ 2] that a court can ascribe some meaning to a patent's claims." Instead, the Court held that § 112 ¶ 2 "require[s] that a patent's claims, viewed in light of the specification and prosecution history, inform those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty." The Court noted that this standard "mandates clarity, while recognizing that absolute precision is unattainable."

The Supreme Court declined to determine whether the underlying "spaced relationship" limitation at issue in Nautilus satisfied the newly articulated standard. Instead, the Court remanded the case so that the Federal Circuit could determine whether a person of skill in the art would have understood the scope of the invention with "reasonable certainty." Given the new standard, it is likely that patent defendants will more frequently seek to invalidate patents using the lower indefiniteness standard.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of www.mondaq.com

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


From time to time Mondaq may send you emails promoting Mondaq services including new services. You may opt out of receiving such emails by clicking below.

*** If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of services offered by Mondaq you may opt out by clicking here .


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.