[time-nuts] patents and hobbyist projects

[Charles Steinmetz]

I wrote:

>  We will have to see how the Limelight case develops (i.e., is
> interpreted in future decisions), but it was issued in a "methods" case
> (as distinguished from the familiar case of physical widgets) and is
> probably pretty narrow.

Lots of development has already happened.

The Supreme Court sent the case back to the Federal Circuit ("remanded" 
it) so the circuit court could reconsider its decision in light of the 
Supreme Court's decision.  On remand, the Federal Circuit, sitting en 
banc, determined that Limelight had directly infringed the Akamai patent 
even though it did not perform all of the steps of the patented method 
itself, because the step(s) performed by Limelight's customers were 
*attributable* to Limelight:  see 
<http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/9-1372.Opinion.8-11-2015.1.PDF>

Limelight sought Supreme Court review of this decision, but on April 18, 
2016 the Supreme Court denied review it (thus leaving the Federal 
Circuit decision standing).

There may be a very few cases in which patent holders will be unable to 
show that alleged infringers are liable for the steps of method patents 
that they do not perform themselves, but probably not very many.  So, as 
a practical matter, the Supreme Court holding turns out to be 
*extremely* narrow.  (And, as I noted in my previous post, it applies 
only to "method" patents in any case).

Best regards,

Charles