13 Analyses of this case by attorneys

  1. "Federal Circuit Clarifies Standard for Induced Infringement of Method Claims"

    Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLPSeptember 6, 2012

    Akamai alleged that because Limelight provided information and technical support to assist its customers in performing the tagging element of the claims, Limelight wielded sufficient “control or direction” to be held vicariously liable for its customers’ actions. See Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., 629 F.3d 1311, 1318-19 (Fed. Cir. 2010), vacated on grant of reh’g en banc, 419 F. App’x 989 (Fed. Cir. 2011), and rev’d, No. 2009-1372, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 18532 (Fed. Cir.

  2. Threading the Needle Between Divided Infringement Issues and Patentable Subject Matter

    Fenwick & West LLPJune 18, 2012

    2007). Now, a stricter legal standard for joint infringement - an agency relationship or a contractual obligation - has been proposed in Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., 629 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2010), and McKesson Technologies Inc v. Epic Systems Corp., 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 7531 (Fed. Cir. 2011).

  3. The Expansion of Direct Infringement and Its Impact on Claim Drafting

    Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLPMary ChlebowskiSeptember 1, 2015

    On a motion for reconsideration, the district court granted Limelight’s motion for judgment as a matter of law and reversed the jury’s verdict.Limelight appealed to the Federal Circuit.On appeal, a three-judge Federal Circuit panel affirmed that decision, finding that, even though Limelight provided instructions on how to tag, and tagging and serving were necessary steps in using Limelight’s services, there was nothing to indicate that Limelight’s customers were acting as agents for Limelight. 629 F.3d 1311, 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2010).The panel further reasoned that Limelight’s customers chose which content, if any, to have delivered by Limelight’s process and performed the “tagging” and “serving” steps accordingly.Id.

  4. Federal Circuit Limits “Divided Infringement” Defense – Precise Contours Of Direct Infringement Remain Uncertain

    Brooks Kushman P.C.Christopher SmithAugust 19, 2015

    In its initial panel decision, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s finding of no direct infringement, holding that Limelight was not liable because it did not control the website owner’s decision to tag certain objects. Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., 629 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2010). In a subsequent en banc decision, the Federal Circuit avoided the divided infringement issue addressed by the panel, and instead held that Limelight may be liable for indirect infringement based on a new rule that the direct infringement requirement for inducement may be satisfied by multiple actors, i.e., all of the steps needed to establish direct infringement need not be attributable to a single actor.

  5. Federal Circuit Panel Reaffirms “Single Entity Rule” – One Infringer Must Be Responsible For Performing All Steps Of Methods Claims

    Brooks Kushman P.C.John LeRoyMay 28, 2015

    In the initial panel decision, the Federal Circuit affirmed, ruling that Limelight was not liable because it did not control the website owner’s decision to tag certain objects. Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., 629 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2010). In a subsequent en banc decision, however, the Federal Circuit deftly avoided the divided infringement issue by ruling that Limelight could be liable for active inducement of infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b).

  6. After the Supreme Court's Limelight Decision, Attention May Shift to Contract Analysis in Patent Cases

    Foley & Lardner LLPJean-Paul CiardulloJuly 3, 2014

    The court held that “the control or direction standard is [only] satisfied in situations where the law would traditionally hold the accused direct infringer vicariously liable for the acts committed by another party that are required to complete performance of a claimed method” and that “mere arms-length cooperation will not give rise to direct infringement by any party.” The 2010 appeal in Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., 629 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2010) presented a closer question because in that case it was acknowledged that “Limelight’s [customer] agreement calls for its customers to assign a unique hostname, requires content providers to perform certain claim steps if they choose to use Limelight’s service, and provides instructions and offers technical assistance for performing those steps.” The Federal Circuit explained that direct infringement liability could indeed be found where a party is “contractually obligated to the accused infringer to perform a method step.”

  7. The U.S. Supreme Court Rules On Induced Infringement

    Proskauer Rose LLPSteven BauerJune 4, 2014

    [2] 532 F.3d at 1329.[3] 629 F.3d 1311,1320.[4] 692 F.3d 1301, 1319 (per curiam).

  8. Supreme Court Overturns Federal Circuit's Inducement Standard But Defers on Divided Infringement

    Crowell & Moring LLPCraig P. LytleJune 3, 2014

    A Federal Circuit panel first affirmed, holding there could be no divided infringement because Limelight's customers did not perform the "tagging" step as "Limelight's agents," nor were the customers "contractually obligated" to perform the step. Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., 629 F.3d 1311, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Sitting en banc, the Federal Circuit in a per curiam opinion ultimately did not clarify the law on divided infringement and instead held that even if no single party is liable for direct infringement, a party can still be liable for inducing infringement.

  9. Federal Circuit Redefines Liability for Induced Infringement

    Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & RosatiSeptember 14, 2012

    Confusion over the infringement standard in such cases has led to inconsistent precedent concerning who may be held liable for direct and/or induced infringement. To clarify the proper test in cases of divided infringement, the Federal Circuit, sitting en banc, reviewed two separate panel decisions, Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. Limelight Networks (Fed. Cir. 2010) and McKesson Technologies, Inc. v. Epic Sys. Corp. (Fed. Cir.

  10. Akamai and McKesson Federal Circuit En Banc Opinion May Affect Certain Commercial and Technological Environments

    Foley & Lardner LLPSeptember 4, 2012

    According to the panel opinion, this arrangement lacked the necessary control and direction between the defendant Limelight Networks and its customers. Akamai Tech., Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., 629 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2010). In reversing these two panel decisions, the Federal Circuit determined that there is no “control or direction” or agency requirement between the parties that perform the steps of a method claim for there to be induced infringement under §271(b).