“In Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc., 572 U.S. 915 (2014), the Court observed that ‘[t]he Federal Circuit’s analysis fundamentally misunderstands what it means to infringe a method patent.’ On remand, the Federal Circuit accepted the Court’s suggestion to ‘revisit the § 271(a) question,’ and realigned § 271(a) method and system claim infringement jurisprudence into a common framework. Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., 797 F.3d 1020 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc) (per curiam).”
“Based on that common framework, the district court upheld a jury verdict that NCR committed vicarious-liability direct-use infringement of system claims under § 271(a). A Federal Circuit panel reversed because the district court’s vicarious-liability analysis ‘conflated’ use of a method claim with use of a system claim. According to the Federal Circuit, the district court erred in relying on a vicarious liability principle that applied only to method claims.”
“The question presented is:”
“1. Whether the same vicarious liability analysis for direct use infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) must be applied to both method and system claims.”
