On July 24, 2014, the Federal Circuit Sua Sponte rejected Akamai's request and the Supreme Court's suggestion that the Federal Circuit can decide the issue of joint infringement en banc if it chooses to do so in Akamai v. Limelight, Appeal No. 2009-1372. Instead, the Federal Circuit decided to refer the case on remand to its “two remaining panel members and a newly-selected judge.” The Federal Circuit had granted Akamai's request to review the issue of joint infringement in 2011, but never reached this issue. Rather, the en banc Federal Circuit found that Limelight, who does not perform the claim step of tagging components to be stored on its servers, which Limelight requires its customers to do, was liable for induced infringement because inducement can be found even when there is no single entity that directly infringes by performing all steps of a method claim. As reported in ITC Section 337 Update dated July 18, 2014, the Supreme Court reversed this decision finding that induced infringement cannot be found when no single entity performs all steps of the method claim. Akamai subsequently requested the Federal Circuit to revisit en banc the issue of whether joint performance of a patented method can create liability for direct infringement. Limelight argued that Akamai failed to preserve the issue of whether the Federal Circuit's standard for joint infringement set forth in Muniauction v. Thomson, 532 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2008) was wrong.