Patent lawsuits limited by Supreme Court in two rulings

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled against patent holders in two cases Monday, rejecting a legal theory used to sue technology companies and requiring patents to be written with more specific language.

The rulings come in a Supreme Court term heavy with patent cases as the justices look for ways to curb what companies such as Google Inc. and Cisco Systems Inc. say is rampant abuse by some patent owners.

Some technology companies and retailers say they are too frequently the target of lawsuits demanding payment by patent owners whose sole mission is to extract royalty revenue.

Though the cases don’t involve such companies, the rulings “can be used as tools” against them, said Brad Wright, a patent lawyer with Banner & Witcoff in Washington, D.C., who wasn’t involved in the cases.

One decision, involving exercise equipment maker Nautilus Inc., “could be used to strike down vaguely worded patents, a problem that many technology companies complain about,” Wright said. “It is this vagueness that sometimes gives rise to gray areas in the law, allowing questionable claims to go forward. This might allow courts to rein those in more.”

The stakes are high for the companies and the broader economy. Industries with revenue tied the most to patent protection—including drugmakers, technology companies and certain manufacturers—generated $763 billion, or 5.3 percent, of the 2010 U.S. gross domestic product, according to a Commerce Department report in 2012.

Business methods

During the past eight years, the Supreme Court has limited patent owners’ ability to block non-competitors from using their inventions, made it easier to invalidate patents, and made it harder to get patents on business methods, medical diagnostics and isolated DNA.

In the other case Monday, the justices unanimously said companies can’t be sued for inducing someone else to violate a patent unless there has been direct infringement of the patent.

That was at least a temporary victory for Limelight Networks Inc. in a legal clash with Akamai Technologies Inc. The justices sent the case back to a lower court to consider a separate legal theory pressed by Akamai.

The case centers on Akamai’s patented method for delivering video or graphics over the Internet during periods of high demand. Akamai says Limelight takes all but one step and induces its customers to perform the final step.

Google, Cisco

Google, Cisco and Facebook Inc. were among the companies backing Limelight, along with the Obama administration. Eli Lilly and Co. and the drug industry supported Akamai.

In the Nautilus case, the court said a federal appeals court wasn’t being rigorous enough in requiring specificity in the wording of patents. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which specializes in patent cases, had said a patent’s wording is adequate as long as someone who understands the technology can figure it out.

The justices said the Federal Circuit standard isn’t precise enough. The ruling is a victory for Nautilus, maker of Bowflex exercise equipment, which is seeking to invalidate a patent on a heart-rate monitor owned by Biosig Instruments Inc.

The justices told the Federal Circuit to reconsider the Biosig patent using a tougher test.

Google, Amazon.com Inc. and other companies said the Federal Circuit standard was too lax and allowed some owners to claim their patent covers far more than was invented.


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. Thank you to the scientists who care enough to find a cure. We are so lucky that their intelligence has brought them to these understandings because it is through these understandings that we have new hope. Certainly the medicine will be expensive, these drugs usually are, especially the ones that are not mass produced. If I know anything from the walks that my town has put on for FA it is this: people care and people want to help. Donations and financial support can and will come to those who need it. All we need is a cure, the money will come. I mean, look at what these scientists have done thanks to the generosity of donors. 30 million dollars brings us here where we can talk about a drug's existence! There is so much to be frustrated about in this world, but this scientific break is not one of them. I am so happy for this new found hope. Thank you so much to the scientists who have been slaving away to help my friends with FA. We wish you speedy success in the time to come!

  2. I love tiny neighborhood bars-- when I travel city to city for work, it's my preference to find them. However, too many still having smoking inside. So I'm limited to bars in the cities that have smoking bans. I travel to Kokomo often, and I can promise, I'll be one of those people who visit the ma and pa bars once they're smoke free!

  3. I believe the issue with keystone & 96th was due to running out of funds though there were other factors. I just hope that a similar situation does not befall ST RD 37 where only half of the overhaul gets built.

  4. It's so great to see a country founded on freedom uphold the freedom for all people to work and patronize a public venue without risking their health! People do not go to bars to smoke, they can take it outside.

  5. So, Hurko, mass transit has not proven itself in Indy so we should build incredibly expensive train lines? How would that fix the lack of demand? And as far as those double decker buses to bus people in from suburbs, we can't fill up a regular sized buses now and have had to cancel lines and greatly subsidize others. No need for double decker buses there.