Akamai Technologies, Inc, v Limelight Networks, Inc, 09-1372 - The CAFC held that where more than one actor is involved in infringing the steps in a patent, one of the actors can be held liable for the entirety of the infringement if that actor “directs or controls the other’s performance.”
OrthoArm Incorporated v GAC International, LLC, 2015 ONSC 5097 - The ONSC was to undertake the analysis that would normally be done at a Markman hearing: to perform claim construction on the US patent and apply that construction to determine whether there is infringement.
Microsoft Corporation v Proxyconn, Inc, - The “broadest reasonable interpretation standard” (“BRI”) standard is the standard for claim construction in Inter Partes Review IPR proceedings and newly substituted claims must be demonstrated to be patentable over the prior art of record.
Beginning May 13, 2015, U.S. entities will be able to file a single international application in a single language to obtain protection for up to 100 industrial designs in over 64 territories. Canadians with U.S. relations may be able to participate.
Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc, et al v Sandoz, Inc, et al, 574 US __ (2015) - United States Supreme Court clarified that claim construction can involve subsidiary factual disputes that are reviewed on a clear error standard, while the ultimate question of claim construction is reviewed de novo.
Google, Inc v Oracle America, Inc, 14-410 - This case would put at issue whether Java’s method headers are subject to copyright protection, or whether they are excluded by Section 102(b) of the Copyright Act for being a system or method of operation.
Nautilus Inc v Biosig Instruments Inc, No 13-369, 572 US ____ (2014) - On the matter of interpreting the meaning of electrodes in a "spaced relationship with each other", the US Supreme Court held that a patent is invalid for indefiniteness if its claims, read in light of the specification and the prosecution history, fail to inform, with reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention and remanded the case to the Federal Circuit.