Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc.
Issues
Can a party be be liable for patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) where it neither performs every step of the patent nor induces another party to perform every step of the patent, but rather performs some steps and knowingly induces the other party to perform the remaining steps?
Akamai Technologies, Inc. (“Akamai”) sued Limelight Networks, Inc. (“Limelight”) for allegedly infringing a patent for a method of delivering web content. Limelight had performed all but one step of the patented method, leaving its customers to perform the remaining step. The Federal Circuit held that Limelight’s conduct constituted infringement by inducement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). The Federal Circuit ruled that the combined conduct of multiple entities may constitute patent infringement where a party performs all but one step of a patented method and knowingly induces another party to perform the remaining step of the method. Akamai argues that the Federal Circuit’s new standard more comprehensively protects the rights of patent owners. However, Limelight counters that the standard too broadly expands the scope of patent infringement liability and could lead to more abusive patent litigation. Limelight argues that to be a violation of § 271(b), a single entity must directly infringe on a patent under § 271(a), and that no such violation is present here. On the other hand, Akamai argues that the Supreme Court should re-instate the jury’s verdict, which found that Limelight controlled a third party’s conduct sufficient to satisfy § 271(a). Additionally, Akamai argues that the Federal Circuit’s new rule is consistent with common law tort principles and with Supreme Court precedent.
Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties
Whether the Federal Circuit erred in holding that a defendant may be held liable for inducing patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) even though no one has committed direct infringement under Section 271(a).
Facts
Akamai Technologies, Inc. (“Akamai”), a content delivery network, owns a patent on a method for delivering web content. See Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., 692 F.3d 1301, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
Edited by
- Tanya Chaney, Divided Patent Infringement in the Wake of Akamai, Law360, Apr. 8, 2013.
- Joe Mullin, Supreme Court Looks to Rein in Top Patent Court with Two New Cases, Ars Technica, Jan. 13, 2014.
- Gary Shapiro, Patent Litigation Threat Looms Over Network Providers, Washington Examiner, Oct. 1, 2013.