Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

contractlawsuitdamagesappealmotionpatentcompliance
trialpatent

Related Cases

Micro Chemical, Inc. v. Lextron, Inc., 113 F.3d 1256 (Table), 1997 WL 218515
View Case »
ACORN v. Edwards, 81 F.3d 1387, 42 ERC 1942, 64 USLW 2684, 108 Ed. Law Rep. 1080, 26 Envtl. L. Rep. 21,257
View Case »
Perfect Web Technologies, Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc., 587 F.3d 1324, 92 U.S.P.Q.2d 1849
View Case »
Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg. Co., 810 F.2d 1561, 1 U.S.P.Q.2d 1593
View Case »
Sandt Technology, Ltd. v. Resco Metal and Plastics Corp., 264 F.3d 1344, 60 U.S.P.Q.2d 1091
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., 797 F.3d 1020, 116 U.S.P.Q.2d 1344

Facts

Akamai Technologies, Inc. filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Limelight Networks, Inc., claiming infringement of its patent for a method of delivering electronic data using a content delivery network (CDN). A jury initially found Limelight liable for infringement and awarded $45.5 million in damages. However, the district court later granted Limelight's motion for relief from judgment, leading to an appeal. The case was reheard en banc by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which reversed the district court's judgment of noninfringement, ultimately resulting in a Supreme Court ruling that reversed and remanded the case.

Issue

Whether Limelight Networks, Inc. can be held liable for direct patent infringement when its customers perform certain steps of the patented method.

Whether Limelight Networks, Inc. can be held liable for direct patent infringement when its customers perform certain steps of the patented method.

Rule

Analysis

We conclude that the facts Akamai presented at trial constitute substantial evidence from which a jury could find that Limelight directed or controlled its customers' performance of each remaining method step.

Conclusion

The court reversed the district court's judgment of noninfringement, holding that Limelight is liable for direct infringement of Akamai's patent.

Therefore, we reverse the district court's grant of judgment of noninfringement as a matter of law.

Who won?

The prevailing party in this case is Akamai Technologies, Inc. The court found that Limelight Networks, Inc. was liable for direct patent infringement because it directed and controlled its customers' performance of the necessary steps in the patented method. The jury's finding of infringement was supported by substantial evidence, including Limelight's contractual requirements and its active engagement with customers to ensure compliance with the method steps.

The prevailing party in this case is Akamai Technologies, Inc. The court found that Limelight Networks, Inc. was liable for direct patent infringement because it directed and controlled its customers' performance of the necessary steps in the patented method.

You must be