Case Update: Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc.

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. 

Court Documents

U.S. Supreme Court Petitions
Conditional Cross-Petition for Writ of Certiorari – Akamai Technologies, Inc., 2.1.2013
Petition for Writ of Certiorari – Epic Systems Corp., 12.28.2012
Petition for Writ of Certiorari – Limelight Networks, Inc., 12.28.2012

Supreme Court Amicus Briefs Filed for Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc.
Altera Corporation
Google, Inc.
CTIA - The Wireless Association

Federal Circuit Decisions and Orders
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Decision, 12.20.2010
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Order Granting Rehearing En Banc, 4.20.2011
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit En Banc Decision, 8.31.2012

Parties’ En Banc Rehearing Briefs
Akamai’s Petition for Panel Rehearing
Limelight’s Response to Akamai’s Petition
Akamai’s Principal En Banc Brief
Limelight’s En Banc Brief
Akamai’s Reply Brief

En Banc Amicus Briefs
Altera Corp., HTC Corp., HTC America, Inc., and Weatherford International
America Intellectual Property Association
Apple Inc.
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
       Zynga Inc.
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 Briefs
Akamai’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, 4.24.2009
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts Final Judgment, 5.14.2009

Patent in Suit

U.S. Patent No. 6,108,703