In two decisions on June 2, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court materially changed the standards for patent inducement infringement previously established by the Federal Circuit.  In an Opinion by Justice Alito in Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc. 12-786, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Federal Circuit and held that a defendant may not be liable for infringing a patent under 35 U.S.C. §271(b) when no single party has directly infringed the patent under Section 271(a) or any other statutory provision.  In a second Opinion on the same day by Justice Ginsberg in Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc. 13-369, the U.S. Supreme Court overruled a decision of the Federal Circuit that an ambiguous claim could be definite under 35 U.S.C. §112  ¶2 as long as the ambiguity was not “insoluble.”  Biosig’s claims were for a heart rate monitor for exercise equipment and included the limitation “spaced relationship.”  The district court found the claims indefinite because no actual parameters for the spacing were specified.  The Federal Circuit decided the claims were not indefinite because they were not “insolubly ambiguous.”  The Supreme Court held the “insolubly ambiguous” standard failed to satisfy the indefiniteness requirement under Section 112¶2:  “[A] patent’s claims, viewed in light of the specification and prosecution history, [must] inform those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty.”  This “mandates clarity” but recognizes “absolute precision is unattainable….  To tolerate imprecision just short of that rendering a claim ‘insolubly ambiguous’ would diminish the definiteness requirement’s public-notice function and foster the innovation-discouraging ‘zone of uncertainty’. . . . ”  Both decisions will impact the Commission’s decisions in ITC Section 337 investigations as the Akamai  decision will make it more difficult for patentees to establish inducing infringement and theNautilus decision will likely increase the challenges to patents under the claim indefiniteness standard.  It also will be interesting to see if the Supreme Court’s decision in Akamai has any impact on the Federal Circuit’s en banc rehearing on the issue of inducing infringement under 19 U.S.C. §1337(a)(1)(B)(i) in Suprema, Inc. and Mentalix, Inc. v. U.S. Int'l Trade Comm'n et al., Court No. 2012-1170.