42 Analyses of this case by attorneys

  1. Patent Law and the Supreme Court: Certiorari Petitions Pending

    WilmerHale LLPMarch 14, 2016

    petition filed 2/2/16.CAFC Opinion was unpublished, No CAFC ArgumentLimelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc. , No. 15-993Question Presented:In Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2111 (2014), this Court noted that, under existing Federal Circuit law, “a method's steps have not all been performed as claimed by the patent unless they are all attributable to the same defendant, either because the defendant actually performed those steps or because he directed or controlled others who performed them.” Id.

  2. The En Banc Federal Circuit in Akamai v. Limelight Broadens the Scope of Direct Infringement under Section 271(a)

    Glaser Weil Fink Howard Avchen & Shapiro LLPDan LiuOctober 22, 2015

    SeeAkamai Technologies, Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., 692 F.3d 1301, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2012) rev’d, 134 S. Ct. 2111 (2014), (“Akamai I”). After remanding from the Supreme Court, which directed the lower court to revisit the issue of direct infringement under Section 271(a), the three-judge panel found that Limelight did not directly infringe the asserted claims because it only performed some but not all steps and its customers were not under its “direction or control.”

  3. The Federal Circuit Reconsiders Multi-Actor Direct Infringement

    White & Case LLPCale TolbertJuly 22, 2015

    [3] Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., 692 F.3d 1301, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2012), rev’d, 134 S. Ct. 2111, 189 L. Ed. 2d 52 (2014) [4] Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Techs., Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2111, 2117 (U.S. 2014).

  4. September 2014: Patent Litigation Update

    Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLPOctober 8, 2014

    Supreme Court Raises the Bar for Establishing Induced Infringement in Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies. In Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Techs, Inc., __ U.S. __, 134 S.Ct. 2111 (2014), theSupreme Court unanimously reversed an en banc Federal Circuit decision that lowered the bar for establishing induced infringement. Specifically, the Supreme Court reversed the Federal Circuit’s ruling that inducement may be found where there was no single, direct infringer.

  5. District Court Grants Motion to Reconsider Summary Judgment Motion after Supreme Court's Decision in Limelight v. Akamai

    Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLPStanley GibsonSeptember 18, 2014

    In this patent infringement action, FedEx moved for reconsideration after the district court had denied its motion for summary judgment regarding the plaintiff's claim for inducing patent infringement. FedEx moved for reconsideration based on the Supreme Court's recent decision in Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2111 (2014). The district court first analyzed whether the motion to reconsider was procedurally proper.

  6. Crafting Blockchain Claims to Avoid Enforcement Pitfalls and Maximize Potential Damages

    Pillsbury’s Internet & Social Media Law BlogJosh TuckerJuly 19, 2018

    Failure to establish direct infringement under Akamai will doom a case for indirect infringement as well because, absent direct infringement, there can be no indirect infringement. (The Supreme Court concluded this in Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc., 134 S.Ct. 2111 (2014) in the context of a claim against a defendant for inducing infringement—a form of indirect infringement.) To mitigate the risk of facing divided infringement issues, patent drafters should draft claims that isolate portions of an inventive process that are not readily subject to sharding or layer-2 scaling.

  7. Travel Sentry: Another Divided Infringement Case With a Lot of Baggage

    K&L Gates LLPBenjamin WeedFebruary 17, 2018

    [18] Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc., Petition for Writ of Cert., No. 12-786, 2012 WL 6759741, at *i (Dec. 28, 2012). [19] Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc. (Akamai III), 134 S. Ct. 2111, 2115 (2014). [20] Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc. (Akamai V), 797 F.3d 1020, 1022 (Fed. Cir.

  8. Providing Conditions May Help Establish Patent Infringement

    Strasburger & Price, LLPDavid GorskiJanuary 9, 2018

    For potential defendants, greater care may be required to ensure that method steps performed by associated entities are not attributed to the defendants. When the Supreme Court last visited the topic of induced patent infringement in Limelight v. Akamai (134 S.Ct. 2111 (2015)), the Court clearly decided that induced infringement cannot occur in the absence of direct infringement. However, the Court also provided the Federal Circuit with the opportunity to revisit the scope of what constitutes “direct infringement” by multiple parties (herein “divided infringement”) on remand.

  9. Federal Circuit recognizes a broad scope of attribution under the doctrine of divided infringement

    DentonsRobert KramerJanuary 4, 2018

    Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., 797 F.3d 1020, 1022-23 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc, per curiam) (identified as Akamai V in Slip Op.), on remand from Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Techns, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2111 (2014). 2.

  10. Federal Circuit Reaffirms Its Expansive View of Divided Infringement

    Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PCWilliam RowlandDecember 30, 2017

    The U.S. Supreme Court has recently opined on the proper legal standard for determining liability in a divided infringement situation. In Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, 134 S. Ct. 2111 (2014), the Court held that induced infringement cannot occur without direct infringement, and direct infringement requires that the performance of all the method steps be attributable to a single person. This is sometimes referred to as the “single-actor rule.”