更多討論：關於Akamai v. Limelight案的CAFC全院庭審判決

Limelight Case Widens Scope Of Direct Infringement (Law360)

Akamai v. Limelight: Federal Circuit Expands the Contours of Direct Infringement (PatentlyO)

En banc Federal Circuit broadens multiple-actor direct infringement (Akamai v. Limelight) (Essential Patent Blog)


Divided Infringement被放寬：Akamai v. Limelight (en banc) (Fed. Cir., August 13, 2015) (Fairsky Patent Memo)


Akamai v. Limelight案的CAFC全院庭審判決作出之後，馬上成為專利業界的重要話題。大家一致認為，這個判決放寬了直接侵權的認定範圍。上面列出了幾個評論的內容，有興趣的人可以參考。

Divided Infringement被放寬後，後續發展與影響當然值得大家注意。比如說，Jason Rantanen教授在PatentlyO部落格上，舉了兩個很有趣的例子，大家可以思考一下：

Interestingly, the consequence now seems to be that inducement can apply to situations where one party performs some of the steps and the remaining steps are performed by another.  First, under Promega v. Life Tech, a party can be liable for inducing itself. Since Limelight is a direct infringer under the new Akamai opinion, it could be liable for inducement as well (not that this would seem to come up much in situations where the steps are being performed domestically).  Second, a party could be liable for inducement where it induced another party who itself performed some of the steps and the remaining steps were attributable to the induced party (even if performed by another).

第一個例子是說，既然Limelight自己直接侵權，那間接侵權似乎也成立 -- 最後變成跟Promega v. Life Tech案的狀況相似地，自己引誘自己侵權。

第二個例子是說，A引誘B侵權，但B自己只執行一部份步驟，其它步驟是C執行，而且C執行步驟這件事可以attributable to B。在這種情況下，A仍然成立引誘侵權 (而且B應該會成立直接侵權。)

是否會有其它意想不到的狀況會發生呢？大家思考看看吧。