Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc., et al.
572 U.S. (2014)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Liability for inducing patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) requires that there first be a direct infringement of the patent under § 271(a) by a single entity performing all the steps of a method patent.
Facts:
- The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) held a patent, licensed exclusively to Akamai Technologies, Inc., for a method of delivering electronic data using a content delivery network (CDN).
- A required step in the patented method is 'tagging' components of a content provider's website to be stored on the CDN's servers.
- Limelight Networks, Inc., a competitor, operated a CDN and performed several steps of the patented method.
- However, Limelight did not perform the 'tagging' step itself; instead, it required its customers to perform the tagging of their own web content.
- Limelight provided its customers with instructions and technical assistance on how to perform the tagging step.
- As a result, no single entity—neither Limelight nor any of its customers—performed all of the steps of the patented method.
Procedural Posture:
- Akamai Technologies, Inc. and MIT sued Limelight Networks, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts for patent infringement.
- A jury in the trial court found Limelight liable for infringement and awarded damages.
- Following the verdict, Limelight filed a motion for judgment as a matter of law, which the District Court granted, overturning the jury verdict on the grounds that no single party performed all the patent's steps.
- Akamai and MIT, as appellants, appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
- A three-judge panel of the Federal Circuit affirmed the trial court's judgment in favor of Limelight, the appellee.
- The Federal Circuit then granted en banc review and reversed the panel, holding that Limelight could be liable for induced infringement even if no single party committed direct infringement.
- Limelight Networks, Inc., as petitioner, sought a writ of certiorari from the U.S. Supreme Court, which was granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Can a defendant be liable for inducing patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) when no single party has committed direct infringement under § 271(a) by performing all of the patent's method steps?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Alito
No. A defendant cannot be liable for inducing patent infringement under § 271(b) unless there has been a direct infringement of the patent, which, for a method patent, requires that all steps of the claimed method be performed by or attributable to a single entity. The Court reasoned that liability for inducement under § 271(b) is predicated on the existence of direct infringement under § 271(a). Citing established precedent like Aro Mfg. Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co., the Court affirmed that a method patent is not infringed unless all of its steps are carried out. Assuming the Federal Circuit's Muniauction rule is correct—that direct infringement requires all steps to be attributable to a single actor—there was no direct infringement in this case because performance was split between Limelight and its customers. To hold otherwise would create a confusing, parallel body of law for inducement liability that is untethered from the statutory definition of infringement and would lack ascertainable standards.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the foundational principle that indirect patent infringement is derivative of direct infringement, meaning there can be no liability for inducing or contributing to an act that is not itself an infringement. The Court's ruling created what many saw as a loophole, allowing a company to avoid liability by simply dividing the steps of a patented method with its customers. By explicitly declining to review the Federal Circuit's underlying 'single-entity' rule for direct infringement from Muniauction, the Supreme Court effectively forced the Federal Circuit to reconsider that precedent on remand, which it subsequently did, ultimately changing the standard for direct infringement in such divided-infringement scenarios.
Unlock the full brief for Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc., et al.