Close X
Attorney Spotlight

How did Sylvia Yi's previous work at the Department of Homeland Security prepare her for working with government contractors at Bass, Berry & Sims? Find out more>


Close X


Search our Experience

Experience Spotlight

On December 1, 2016, Parker Hannifin Corporation and CLARCOR Inc. announced that the companies have entered into a definitive agreement under which Parker will acquire CLARCOR for approximately $4.3 billion in cash, including the assumption of net debt. The transaction has been unanimously approved by the board of directors of each company. Upon closing of the transaction, expected to be completed by or during the first quarter of Parker’s fiscal year 2018, CLARCOR will be combined with Parker’s Filtration Group to form a leading and diverse global filtration business. Bass, Berry & Sims has served CLARCOR as primary corporate and securities counsel for 10 years and served as lead counsel on this transaction. Read more here.

Close X

Thought Leadership

Enter your search terms in the relevant box(es) below to search for specific Thought Leadership.
To see a recent listing of Thought Leadership, click the blue Search button below.

Thought Leadership Spotlight

FCPA: 2016 Year in Review & 2017 Enforcement Predictions

A review of trends and developments in FCPA as well as a look ahead into what to expect for 2017. This report aims at providing corporate leaders and companies with the knowledge they need to comply with the FCPA and avoid litigation in 2017.

Read now

United States Supreme Court Continues Reform of Fundamental Patent Law


June 5, 2014

On June 2, 2014, the United States Supreme Court released two more unanimous opinions impacting fundamental patent law principles, continuing the recent trend of patent law reform at the High Court.1 The Supreme Court has now unanimously overruled each of the five patent-related decisions by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that it has reviewed this term.2 Many believe this trend merely reflects public focus on patent litigation by non-practicing entities ("the trolls"). Others speculate that the Supreme Court is motivated to address long-standing uncertainties in patent litigation resulting from intra-circuit splits within the Federal Circuit. Regardless of the motivation, recent decisions by the Supreme Court signal a transition period in patent law that compels increased vigilance by practitioners.

No Inducement Without Direct Infringement

In the closely watched Limelight case, the Supreme Court reversed the Federal Circuit and unanimously held that a defendant is not liable for inducing infringement of a patented method unless a single actor performs all of the steps of the method.3 Concisely stated, "there has simply been no infringement" of a method claim "when all the claimed steps cannot be attributed to a single person." In such a case "no direct infringement [is] committed," and a defendant "cannot be liable for inducing infringement that never came to pass." The Court explained that liability for inducing infringement requires a showing of direct infringement, and direct infringement cannot stand unless a single party is responsible for the infringing activity.

The Court recognized that under its interpretation "a would-be infringer [may] evade liability by dividing performance of a method patent's steps with another [party]," but found the example unpersuasive in light of the Patent Act's plain language regarding direct infringement.  Further, according to the Supreme Court, the Federal Circuit's holding would necessitate a "free-floating" standard for determining whether multiple parties' activities conflate to a single entity's. As an alternative, the Supreme Court noted that, on remand, the Federal Circuit has the opportunity to revisit the statutory definition of direct infringement.

UPDATE: On August 13, 2015, the Federal Circuit expanded the test for direct infringement of method claims by multiple actors.  For analysis of that decision, please see our Alert entitled Federal Circuit Broadens Range of Liability Under Joint Patent Infringement Theories

New Test for Patent Claim Definiteness

The Nautilus case involved the proper standard for judging whether a patent claim is statutorily "definite" under 35 U.S.C. § 112, Para. 2, i.e., whether the claim particularly points out and distinctly claims the subject matter which the applicant regards as the invention. Again in a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court found that "a patent is invalid for indefiniteness if its claims, read in light of the specification delineating the patent, and the prosecution history, fail to inform, with reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention."

In so holding the Court overturned numerous Federal Circuit decisions which measured indefiniteness according to whether claims were "insolubly ambiguous" or "amenable to construction." According to the Supreme Court, this Federal Circuit standard "invoked a standard more amorphous than the statutory definiteness requirement allows," and did not provide a "test [that] is at least 'probative of the essential inquiry.'" The Federal Circuit’s judgment was vacated, and the case remanded.

At least two other significant patent related cases remain pending before the High Court this term. At minimum, current patent strategies, opinions and defenses must be continuously updated and reviewed as the Supreme Court’s reform continues.  We will be looking out for further decisions and providing additional information as it arises.

1 Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Tech., Inc., Case No. 12-786, 572 U.S. ___ (Jun. 2, 2014) (Slip Op.); Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instrs., Inc., Case No. 13-369, 572 U.S. ___ (Jun. 2, 2014) (Slip Op.).

2 In our April 30, 2014 Alert, we discussed the Supreme Court's unanimous decisions regarding attorneys' fees in patent litigation.

3 We discussed the Federal Circuit's now-overturned Limelight decision in greater detail in our September 5, 2012 Alert.

Related Professionals

Related Services


Visiting, or interacting with, this website does not constitute an attorney-client relationship. Although we are always interested in hearing from visitors to our website, we cannot accept representation on a new matter from either existing clients or new clients until we know that we do not have a conflict of interest that would prevent us from doing so. Therefore, please do not send us any information about any new matter that may involve a potential legal representation until we have confirmed that a conflict of interest does not exist and we have expressly agreed in writing to the representation. Until there is such an agreement, we will not be deemed to have given you any advice, any information you send may not be deemed privileged and confidential, and we may be able to represent adverse parties.