Supreme Court agrees to hear two patent cases

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Supreme Court agrees to hear two patent cases

The US Supreme Court today granted review for two patent cases, one copyright case and one trade mark case. The cases are Limelight Networks v Akamai Technologies, Nautilus v Biosig Instruments, ABC v Aereo and POM Wonderful v Coca-Cola

US Supreme Court

A number of other patent cases were up for vote in conference but were not granted review.

The Nautilus v Biosig case revolves around Section 112(b), which defines specification. Two questions have been presented in the case:

(1) Whether the Federal Circuit’s acceptance of ambiguous patent claims with multiple reasonable interpretations – so long as the ambiguity is not “insoluble” by a court – defeats the statutory requirement of particular and distinct patent claiming;

(2) Whether the presumption of validity dilutes the requirement of particular and distinct patent claiming.

Limelight v Akamai is a case that may clarify the law on so-called divided infringement. This is when two separate parties each perform different steps of a method claim. Akamai believes that Limelight infringed its patent covering a method for handling web traffic more efficiently by performing some steps and inducing its customers to perform others.

Akamai filed its petition requesting certiorari last February. Limelight in response asked the Supreme Court to accept the case and reaffirm the conclusion of a 1961 case Aro Manufacturing v Convertible Top Replacement of: “If there is no direct infringement of a patent there can be no [indirect] infringement”.

In ABC v Aereo it is contended that Aereo violates media companies’ copyrights by using thousands of small antennas to receive broadcast signals without paying fees. Broadcasters believes the federal appeal court ruling that favoured Aereo will encourage other cable and satellite providers to avoid paying so-called retransmission fees to carry programming.

The Supreme Court will also hear POM Wonderful v Coca-Cola, a dispute over whether a beverage label is misleading or false.

The highest profile case not granted review was Soverain v Newegg. Other cases not granted review were Power Integrations v Fairchild Semiconductor Int’l, Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association v Monsanto and Metso Mineral Industries v Powerscreen International Distribution.

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Daniel Raymond, who will serve as head of client relations, tells Managing IP that law firms must offer ‘brave’ opinions if they want to keep winning new business
The new outfit, Ashurst Perkins Coie, will bring together around 3,000 lawyers across 23 countries
In the seventh episode of a podcast series celebrating the tenth anniversary of IP Inclusive, we discuss IP Out, a network for LGBTQAI+ professionals and their allies
Sara Horton, co-chair of Willkie’s IP litigation group, reflects on launching the firm’s Chicago office during a global pandemic, and how she advises young, female attorneys
Brian Paul Gearing brings technical depth, litigation expertise, and experience with Japanese business culture to Pillsbury’s IP practice
News of InterDigital suing Amazon in the US and CMS IndusLaw challenging Indian rules on foreign firms were also among the top talking points
IP lawyers at three firms reflect on how courts across Australia have reacted to AI use in litigation, and explain why they support measured use of the technology
AJ Park’s owner, IPH, announced earlier this week that Steve Mitchell will take the reins of the New Zealand-based firm in January
Chris Adamson and Milli Bouri of Adamson & Partners join us to discuss IP market trends and what law firm and in-house clients are looking for
Noemi Parrotta, chair of the European subcommittee within INTA's International Amicus Committee, explains why the General Court’s decision in the Iceland case could make it impossible to protect country names as trademarks
Gift this article