property law

Sup

O
v. Akama
infringem
placing w
to instruc
direct and
not itself
one of th
infringem
claim ste
the action

In
revisit th
35 U.S.C
infringem
liability u
performs
the agent
control.
§ 271(b)
patentee
(or a sing
the metho

L
Limeligh
argument
following
that a def
though n
that Lime
urged the
properly

preme Cou

On April 30,

ai Technolog

ment if no pa

web content

ct browsers t

d indirect in

f modify the

he claim step

ment only. T

eps were perf

ns of the con

n an en banc

e law of "div

C. § 271(a).

ment under §

under § 271(

s some claim

t of the accu

However, th

for induced

relying on §

gle entity and

od steps.

Limelight and

ht's petition,

ts were hear

g was presen

fendant may

o one has co

elight's liabi

e Court to ad

before the C

Intel

rt Hears Ar

2014, the U

gies, Inc. Th

arty is liable

on a set of re

to retrieve co

fringement.

content prov

s and Limel

The trial judg

formed by m

ntent provide

c decision, th

vided infring

As a result,

§ 271(a). Un

(a) for direct

m steps and a

sed infringer

he Federal C

infringemen

§ 271(b) had

d one or mor

d Akamai bo

but Akamai'

rd on April 3

nted as the q

y be liable fo

ommitted dir

lity under §

ddress § 271

Court.

lectual

rguments R

by H.

.S. Supreme

he issue in th

for direct in

eplicated ser

ontent from

Limelight m

viders’ web

ight perform

ge ultimately

multiple parti

ers.

he Court of A

gement" as i

the Federal

nder the law

t infringemen

another party

r or acting u

Circuit furthe

nt. This was

to show tha

re agents or

oth filed peti

's petition re

3 0, 2014, in c

question on a

r inducing p

rect infringem

271(a) was

(a) liability.

Prope

Regarding In

Wayne Port

e Court heard

his case is wh

nfringement.

rvers and mo

those server

maintained a

pages. In ef

med other ste

y granted jud

ies and becau

Appeals for t

t pertains to

Circuit uphe

which the F

nt of a meth

y performs th

under the acc

er held that L

s a significan

at an accused

other directe

itions for cer

emains pendi

connection w

appeal: "whe

patent infring

ment under

also fairly in

Limelight d

erty Ale

nduced Infr

ter

d arguments

hether there

Akamai’s c

odifying a co

rs. Akamai s

a network of

ffect, Limeli

eps. Akamai

dgment as a

ause Limelig

the Federal C

liability for

eld Limeligh

Federal Circu

hod claim wh

he other step

cused infring

Limelight cou

nt change in

d party active

ed or contro

rtiorari. The

ing. Briefs w

with Limelig

ether the Fed

gement unde

§ 271(a)." I

ncluded in th

disputed that

ert:

ringement i

in Limeligh

can be liabi

claimed met

ontent provi

sued Limelig

f servers, but

ight’s custom

i proceeded

matter of law

ght did not di

Circuit Cour

r direct infrin

ht’s non-liabi

uit did not re

hen an accus

ps unless that

ger's directio

uld be liable

the law. Pr

ely induced

lled parties)

e Supreme C

were filed an

ght’s petition

deral Circuit

er 35 U.S.C.

In its brief, A

he question p

at § 271(a) lia

n Limelight

ht Networks,

lity for indu

thod involve

der’s web pa

ght alleging

t Limelight d

mers perform

to trial on di

w because th

irect and con

rt declined to

ngement und

ility for dire

evisit, there i

sed infringer

t other party

on or

e under 35 U

eviously, a

a single enti

to perform

Court granted

nd oral

n. The

erred in hol

§ 271(b) ev

Akamai argu

presented an

ability was

t

Inc.

uced

ed

age

did

med

irect

he

ntrol

o

der

ect

is no

r

y is

U.S.C.

ity

all of

d

ding

ven

ued

nd