|
|
![]() |
LIMELIGHT NETWORKS, INC. v. AKAMAI TECHNOLOGIES
|
|
Limelight Networks, Inc.
v. Akamai Technologies, Inc., et al. |
Background: Akamai holds a patent claiming a method involving redirecting requests for Internet content and selecting optimal servers. The Federal Circuit acknowledged that neither Limelight nor customers using Limelight's service directly infringe Akamai's patent under 35 U.S.C. 271(a) because no one performs all the steps of the patented method. App. 6a, 30a. The Federal Circuit nevertheless held that Limelight could be liable, under 35 U.S.C. 271(b), for inducing infringement if (1) it knew of Akamai's patent; (2) it performed all but one of the steps of the method; (3) it induced its customers to perform the final step of the claimed method; and (4) the customers performed that step. App. 30a. Question Presented: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). |
LIMELIGHT NETWORKS, INC. v. AKAMAI TECHNOLOGIES |
Holding: REVERSED AND REMANDED |
Vote: 9-0 |
Majority: unanimous |
Opinion By: |
1 | Slip Opinion in LIMELIGHT NETWORKS, INC. v. AKAMAI TECHNOLOGIES (Opinion by Justice Samuel Anthony Alito, Jr.) |
2 | LIMELIGHT NETWORKS, INC. v. AKAMAI TECHNOLOGIES Oral Argument Audio |
3 | LIMELIGHT NETWORKS, INC. v. AKAMAI TECHNOLOGIES Oral Argument Transcript (PDF) |