On August 31, 2012, the Federal Circuit, sitting en banc, reversed a panel decision ruling in Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., 2009-1372, -1380, -1416, -1417, that Limelight did not infringe Akamai’s patented technology because it had not performed all of the steps of a method claim. While Limelight had contracted with other parties to perform the steps of the patented method, it had not performed all the steps itself. The en banc Court determined that a party can still show induced infringement under circumstances where both the inducer and the induced party each perform some of the steps of a method claim. Applying this test, the Court found that Limelight could be held liable for induced infringement and reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings. Akamai Technologies, Inc., was represented by Finnegan in the en banc appeal.  

Court Documents

Federal Circuit Decisions and Orders

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Decision, 12.20.2010

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Order Granting Rehearing en banc, 4.20.2011

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit en banc Decision, 8.31.2012

Parties’ en banc Rehearing Briefs

Akamai’s Petition for Panel Rehearing

Limelight’s Response to Akamai’s Petition

Akamai’s Principal Brief

Limelight’s Principal Brief

Akamai’s Reply Brief

Limelight’s Reply Brief

District Court Opinions and Orders

U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts Memorandum and Order, 4.24.2009

U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts Final Judgment, 5.14.2009

Patent in Suit

U.S. Patent No. 6,108,703