Case Update: Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc.
August 31, 2012
On August 31, 2012, the Federal Circuit, sitting en banc, reversed a panel decision ruling in Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., 2009-1372, -1380, -1416, -1417, that Limelight did not infringe Akamai’s patented technology because it had not performed all of the steps of a method claim. While Limelight had contracted with other parties to perform the steps of the patented method, it had not performed all the steps itself. The en banc Court determined that a party can still show induced infringement under circumstances where both the inducer and the induced party each perform some of the steps of a method claim. Applying this test, the Court found that Limelight could be held liable for induced infringement and reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings. Akamai Technologies, Inc., was represented by Finnegan in the en banc appeal.
U.S. Supreme Court Petitions
Conditional Cross-Petition for Writ of Certiorari – Akamai Technologies, Inc.
, 2.1.2013Petition for Writ of Certiorari – Epic Systems Corp.
, 12.28.2012 Petition for Writ of Certiorari – Limelight Networks, Inc.
Supreme Court Amicus Briefs Filed for Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc.
CTIA - The Wireless Association
Federal Circuit Decisions and Orders
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Decision
, 12.20.2010U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Order Granting Rehearing En Banc
, 4.20.2011U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit En Banc Decision
Parties’ En Banc Rehearing Briefs
Akamai’s Petition for Panel Rehearing
Limelight’s Response to Akamai’s PetitionAkamai’s Principal En Banc BriefLimelight’s En Banc BriefAkamai’s Reply Brief
En Banc Amicus Briefs
Altera Corp., HTC Corp., HTC America, Inc., and Weatherford International
America Intellectual Property Association
Aristocrat Techs. Australia PTY Ltd. and Aristocrat Techs, Inc.
Boston Patent Law Association
Cascade Ventures, Inc. and VNS Corp.
Cisco Systems, Inc., Dell, Inc., eBay Inc., Google Inc., Hewlett-Packard
Company, Intel Corp., Intuit, Inc., Micron Technology, Inc., NetApp, Inc.,
RingCentral, Inc., SAP America, Inc., Symantec Corp., Yahoo, Inc., and
Conejo Valley Bar Association
CTIA—The Wireless Association and MetroPCS Wireless, Inc.
Electronic Frontier Foundation
Facebook, Inc. and Linkedln Corporation
Internet Retailers [Abt Electronics, Inc., Crutchfield Corporation,
L. L. Bean, Inc., Newegg, Inc., PetMed Express, Inc.]
Myriad Genetics, Inc.
New York Intellectual Property Law Association
Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America
San Diego Intellectual Property Law Association, The Foundry Group,
First Round Capital and Kedrosky Capital
Shuffle Master, Inc.
The Biotechnology Industry Organization
The Financial Services Roundtable
Thomson Reuters Corp.
Washington State Patent Law Association
Parties’ Appeal BriefsAkamai’s Principal Brief
Limelight’s Principal Brief
Akamai’s Reply Brief
Limelight’s Reply Brief
District Court Opinions and Orders
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts Memorandum and Order
, 4.24.2009U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts Final Judgment
Patent in SuitU.S. Patent No. 6,108,703
Copyright © Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP. This article is for informational purposes, is not intended to constitute legal advice, and may be considered advertising under applicable state laws. This article is only the opinion of the authors and is not attributable to Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, or the firm's clients.