Law Seminars International Presents: Call from Anywhere for a One-Hour Expert Analysis by Phone on

Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc.
Implications of the landmark patent decision

June 16, 2014
Call in from Anywhere!
11-12 am Pacific / 2-3 pm Eastern

Who Should Call In

Attorneys and business executives involved with patent prosecution, transactions and litigation

Why You Should Call In

On June 2, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Limelight v. Akamai that liability for induced infringement must be predicated on direct infringement. For a method claim, such direct infringement occurs only where performance of all of the claim steps are attributable to a single direct infringer. The Federal Circuit, which had previously held en banc that induced infringement did not require attribution to a single direct infringer, was consequently reversed. The decision will have a significant impact on patent holders reliant on a multi-step patented process and is likely to influence patent lawsuits going forward.

While the Court acknowledged the concern that its decision might allow one to evade liability by dividing performance of method steps with another party, it put blame for this on the Federal Circuit's interpretation of when claim steps can (and cannot) be attributable to a single entity under a theory of joint infringement. However, because the question presented to the Court was directed to induced rather than direct infringement, the Court declined to review the issue concerning joint infringement.

This one-hour TeleBriefing features analysis of the Court's decision in Limelight and expert advice for companies on induced infringement scenarios that have (and have not) been impacted by this decision. Consideration will also be given to the potential fate of current law regarding joint infringement. Discussions will be led by an expert group of practitioners that includes Aaron D. Van Oort, chair of the appellate advocacy group at Faegre Baker Daniels and author of an amicus brief in the Limelight case arguing for the position eventually adopted by the Court. These experts will draw on their extensive experience navigating induced and joint infringement-related issues to provide valuable information for patent practitioners and in-house counsel.

What You Will Learn

What Attendees Have Said About Similar Programs


Monday, June 16, 2014

11:00 am

Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc.

Scott M. Alter, Esq., Moderator, Partner
Faegre Baker Daniels LLP / Denver, CO

David M. Rosenblatt, Esq., Assistant General Counsel/Intellectual Property
Thomson Reuters Corporation / New York, NY

Aaron D. Van Oort, Esq., Partner
Faegre Baker Daniels LLP / Minneapolis, MN

12:00 pm

Q & A (for up to 30 minutes)


If You Cannot Dial In

An entire audio recording and the written materials are available for $150. You may choose to receive the files via email, on a CD or on a flash drive. Programs are available 48 hours after the TeleBriefing or from the date we receive payment. CD and flashdrive orders are sent via First Class mail within two business days after the TeleBriefing or from the date we receive payment. Order Homestudy


Individual rate: $150

Group rate: $100 per person attending on the same line

Financial aid is available to those who qualify. Contact our office for more information.

Continuing Education Credits

This TeleBriefing qualifies for 1.0 Washington CLE credits. For CLE credits in other states:

We will apply for credits in the following states: AK, AL, AZ, AR, CA, CT, GA, IA, ID, IL, IN, KS, KY, LA, ME, MN, MO, MS, NC, ND, NE, NH, NM, NV, NY (experienced attorneys only), OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, TN, TX, UT, VA, VT, WI, WV, and WY.

You can self-report for credits in: CO, DE, FL, HI, MT, and NJ.

CLE credits currently are not available in: DC, MA, MD, MI, OH, or SD.

If you need other types of credits, please call us at (206) 567-4490.

Call In Info

The dial-in number and a link to the materials will be emailed to you the day before the TeleBriefing. All orders are processed within one business day of receipt.

Cancellation & Substitution

You may substitute another person at any time or receive a recording of the program (see If You Cannot Attend).

Our Distinguished Panel

Scott M. Alter, partner at Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, focuses on intellectual property matters concerning software, electronics, internet, telecommunications, electronic commerce and semiconductor technologies. Mr. Alter has also served as an expert witness in litigation concerning data encryption technology. His experience includes developing and implementing IP strategies for protecting and monetizing technology assets, managing complex patent prosecution, and rendering opinions regarding infringement, validity and enforceability of patents. Mr. Alter is listed in Chambers USA and Super Lawyers.

David M. Rosenblatt, Assistant General Counsel/Intellectual Property at Thomson Reuters Corporation, has numerous responsibilities including managing Thomson Reuters' worldwide patent preparation and prosecution. As an IP attorney he has handled all facets of IP including litigation, licensing, preparation and prosecution, IP issues associated with mergers, acquisitions and divestitures, and related antitrust issues.

Aaron D. Van Oort, a partner at Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, is a legal strategist, class action opponent, and appellate lawyer who co-chairs the Faegre Baker Daniels appellate advocacy group. Before joining the firm, Aaron clerked for Justice Antonin Scalia at the United States Supreme Court and Chief Judge Richard Posner at the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Mr. Van Oort has represented clients in nine of the 13 United States Courts of Appeal, as well as in the United States Supreme Court and in state appellate courts. In the Limelight/Akamai case before the Supreme Court, Mr. Van Oort submitted an amicus brief on behalf of Coca-Cola, Cargill, General Mills, and Hormel urging the Court to reverse the decision of the Federal Circuit, which it ultimately did.