Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Joint Infringement Post-Akamai: Understanding the Impact on Prosecution and Litigation Strategies<br><font size="-1"><b><i>Part 2: Decisions Since</i> Akamai <i>and Practice Insights</b></i></font>
This two-part article explores the new joint infringement standard set forth in the Federal Circuit's 2015 Akamai v. Limelight decision, 797 F.3d 1020, 1023 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Part 1 deconstructed the new standard and identified several ways in which courts could interpret and apply it. Part 2 reviews the recent Federal Circuit Eli Lilly case as well as district court cases that have interpreted the new standard and identifies prosecution and litigation strategies for practicing post-Akamai.
Eli Lilly v. Teva
The first district court case to meaningfully applying the new “conditions” standard was Eli Lilly & Co. v. Teva Parenteral Medicines, Inc., 126 F. Supp. 3d 1037 (S.D. Ind. 2015). In that case, Teva's generic premetrexed proposed label instructed physicians to tell patients to start taking folic acid one week before administering a premetrexed treatment. Id. at 1039. The folic acid pre-treatment was important for preventing life-threatening complications caused by premetrexed's toxicity. Id. at 1042. Eli Lilly's patent covered a method of treatment comprising administering folic acid prior to treating with premetrexed. Id. at 1039. Under the pre-Akamai “control or direction” test, a patient's acts would not have been attributable to a physician because the patient was not under the physician's control as part of an agency or contractual relationship. See, id. at 1042. The question for the court was whether a patient's self-administration of folic acid as instructed by a physician would be attributable to the physician under the new “conditions” standard. Id.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?