CloudofChange, LLC v. NCR Corporation

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 vicariousliability 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.