PATENTS

The Solicitor General's brief recommending cert in Akamai v. Limelight:

The court of appeals erred in holding that a defendant who performs some steps of a patented method and who induces another party to perform the remaining steps may be liable for active inducement of infringement under Section 271(b) even though no party has directly infringed the patent under Section 271(a). This Court’s review of that question is warranted to avert a significant expansion of the scope of inducement liability (and a corresponding increase in burdensome litigation) that is not justified under a proper understanding of Section 271.

Counsel for Akamai and MIT (King & Spaulding, Finnegan, Choate)  request denial of the cert petition, claiming among other issues that the Government's brief is internally inconsistent.