Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc.

Citation692 F.3d 1301
Decision Date31 August 2012
Docket Number2010–1291.,2009–1416,2009–1380,2009–1417,Nos. 2009–1372,s. 2009–1372
PartiesAKAMAI TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Plaintiff–Appellant, and The Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. LIMELIGHT NETWORKS, INC., Defendant–Cross Appellant. and McKesson Technologies, Inc. (formerly McKesson Information Solutions, LLC), Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Epic Systems Corporation, Defendant–Appellee.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

692 F.3d 1301

AKAMAI TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Plaintiff–Appellant,
and
The Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Plaintiff–Appellant,
v.
LIMELIGHT NETWORKS, INC., Defendant–Cross Appellant.

and
McKesson Technologies, Inc. (formerly McKesson Information Solutions, LLC), Plaintiff–Appellant,
v.
Epic Systems Corporation, Defendant–Appellee.

Nos. 2009–1372, 2009–1380, 2009–1416, 2009–1417, 2010–1291.

United States Court of Appeals,
Federal Circuit.

Aug. 31, 2012.


[692 F.3d 1302]


Donald R. Dunner, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, of Washington, DC, argued for plaintiffs-appellants on rehearing en banc in appeal nos. 2009–1372, –1380, –1416, and –1417 (“the Akamai appeals”).
With him on the brief for Akamai Technologies, Inc. were Kara F. Stoll and Elizabeth D. Ferrill. Of counsel on the brief was Jennifer S. Swan, of Palo Alto, CA. On the brief for The Massachusetts Institute of Technology was Robert S. Frank, Jr., Choate, Hall & Stewart, LLP, of Boston, MA. Of counsel were G. Mark Edgarton and Carlos Perez–Albuerne.

Aaron M. Panner, Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel, P.L.L.C. of Washington, DC, argued for defendant-cross appellant on rehearing en banc in the Akamai appeals. With him on the brief was Michael E. Joffre. Of counsel on the brief were Dion Messer, Limelight Networks, Inc., of Tempe, AZ. Also on the brief were Alexander F. Mackinnon, Kirkland & Ellis, LLP, of Los Angeles, CA and Young J. Park, of New York, NY. On counsel was John C. Rozendaal, Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel, P.L.L.C., of Washington, DC.

[692 F.3d 1303]


Raymond P. Niro, Niro, Haller & Niro, of Chicago, IL, for amici curiae Cascades Ventures, Inc. and VNS Corporation on rehearing en banc in the Akamai appeals.
With him on the brief was John C. Janka.

Meredith Martin Addy, Brinks Hofer Gilson & Lione, of Chicago, IL, for amici curiae Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Limited, et al. on rehearing en banc in the Akamai appeals.
Of counsel on the brief was Anthony De Alcuaz, McDermott Will & Emery, LLP, of Menlo Park, CA.

Eric L. Abbott, Shuffle Master, Inc., of Las Vegas, NV, for amicus curiae Shuffle Master, Inc. on rehearing en banc in the Akamai appeals.


Jeffrey W. Francis, Pierce Atwood LLP, of Boston, MA, for amicus curiae Boston Patent Law Association on rehearing en banc in the Akamai appeals.


Benjamin G. Jackson, Myriad Genetics, Inc., of Salt Lake City, UT, for amicus curiae Myriad Genetics, Inc. on rehearing en banc in the Akamai appeals.
With him on the brief was Jay M. Zhang.

William G. Barber, Pirkey Barber, LLP, of Austin, TX, for amicus curiae American Intellectual Property Law Association on rehearing en banc in the Akamai appeals.


John W. Ryan, Sullivan & Worcester, of Washington, DC, for amicus curiae Biotechnology Industry Organization on rehearing en banc in the Akamai appeals.
With him on the brief was Thomas M. Haas. Of counsel on the brief was Hans Sauer, PH.D., Biotechnology Industry Organization, of Washington, DC.

Robert P. Taylor, Arnold & Porter, LLP, of San Francisco, CA, for amicus curiae Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America on rehearing en banc in the Akamai appeals.
With him on the brief was Monty M. Agarwal. Of counsel on the brief were David R. Marsh and Lisa A. Adelson, of Washington, DC and David E. Korn, Senior Assistant General Counsel, Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, of Washington, DC.

Steven C. Sereboff, SoCal IP Law Group, LLP, of Westlake, Village, CA, for amicus curiae Conejo Valley Bar Association on rehearing en banc in the Akamai appeals.
With him on the brief were Mark A. Goldstein and M. Karla Sarvaiya.

Julie P. Samuels, Electronic Frontier Foundation, of San Francisco, CA, for amicus curiae Electronic Frontier Foundation on rehearing en banc in the Akamai appeals.
Of counsel on the brief was Michael Barclay.

Michael K. Kirschner, Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson, P.S., of Seattle, Washington, for amicus curiae Washington State Patent Law Association on rehearing en banc in the Akamai appeals.
With him on the brief was Alexander M. Wu.

Jerry R. Selinger, Patterson & Sheridan, LLP, of Houston, TX, for amicus curiae Altera Corporation, et al. on rehearing en banc in the Akamai appeals.
With him on the brief were B. Todd Patterson; and Gero G. McClellan, of Greensboro, NC.

Charles A. Weiss, New York Intellectual Property Law Association, of New York, NY, for amicus curiae New York Intellectual Property Law Association on rehearing en banc in the Akamai appeals.
With him on the brief was Theresa M. Gillis.

Calvin L. Litsey, Faegre & Benson, LLP, of Minneapolis, MN, for amicus curiae Thomson Reuters Corporation on rehearing en banc in the Akamai appeals.
With him on the brief were Aaron D. Van Oort, Christopher J. Burrell, and Timothy M. Sullivan.

Peter J. Brann, Brann & Isaacson, of Lewiston, ME, for amici curiae Internet Retailers on rehearing en banc in the Akamai appeals.
With him on the brief were

[692 F.3d 1304]

David Swetnam–Burland and Stacy O. Stitham.

Garreth A. Sarosi, MetroPSC Wireless, Inc. of Richardson, TX, for amicus curiae MetroPCS Wireless, Inc. on rehearing en banc in the Akamai appeals.
With him on the brief was Mark A. Stachiw. On the brief for CTIA–The Wireless Association were Gregory P. Stone, Andrew W. Song and Heather E. Takahashi, Munger, Tolles & Olson, LLP, of Los Angeles, CA.

Timothy S. Teter, Cooley, LLP, of Palo Alto, CA, for amicus curiae Apple Inc. on rehearing en banc in the Akamai appeals.
With him on the brief were Lori R. Mason and Benjamin G. Damstedt. Of counsel on the brief were Iain R. Cunningham and Patrick J. Murphy, Apple, Inc., of Cupertino, CA.

Vicki G. Norton, Duane Morris LLP, of San Diego, CA, for amici curiae San Diego Intellectual Property Law Association, et al. on rehearing en banc in the Akamai appeals.


Edward R. Reines, Weil, Gotshal & Manges, LLP, of Redwood Shores, CA, for amici curiae Cisco Systems, Inc., et al. on rehearing en banc in the Akamai appeals.
With him on the brief was Nathan Greenblatt.

Matthew D. McGill, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, of Washington, DC, for amici curiae for Facebook, Inc., et al. on rehearing en banc in the Akamai appeals.
With him on the brief was William G. Jenks.

Steven Gardner, Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, of Winston–Salem, NC, for amicus curiae The Financial Services Roundtable on rehearing en banc in the Akamai appeals.
With him on the brief was Alton L. Absher III. Of counsel on the brief was Gia L. Cincone, of San Francisco, CA.

Daryl L. Joseffer, King & Spalding, LLP, of Washington, DC, argued for plaintiff-appellant on rehearing en banc in appeal no.2010–1291 (“the McKesson appeal”).
With him on the brief were Timothy G. Barber and Adam M. Conrad, of Charlotte, NC. Of counsel was Paul D. Clement, King & Spalding, of Washington, DC.

Steven D. Moore, of Kilpatrick Stockton LLP, of Atlanta, GA, argued for defendant-appellee on rehearing en banc in the McKesson appeal.
With him on the brief were William H. Boice, Russell A. Korn, D. Clay Holloway and Jason D. Gardner. Of counsel on the brief was Adam H. Charnes, of Winston–Salem, NC.

Meredith Martin Addy, Brinks Hofer Gilson & Lione, of Chicago, IL, for amici curiae Aristocrat Technologies Austrialia Pty Limited, et al. on rehearing en banc in the McKesson appeal.
With her on the brief was Anthony De Alcuaz, McDermott Will & Emery LLP, of Menlo Park, CA.

Jay Z. Zhang, Myriad Genetics, Inc., of Salt Lake City, UT, for amicus curiae Myriad Genetics, Inc. on rehearing en banc in the McKesson appeal.
With him on the brief was Benjamin G. Jackson.

Hans Sauer, Ph.D., Biotechnology Industry Organization, of Washington, DC, for amicus curiae Biotechnology Industry Organization on rehearing en banc in the McKesson appeal.
Of counsel on the brief were John W. Ryan and Thomas M. Haas, Sullivan & Worcester, of Washington, DC.

Robert P. Taylor, Arnold & Porter LLP, of San Francisco, CA, for amicus curiae Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America on rehearing en banc in the McKesson appeal.
With him on the brief was Monty M. Agarwal. Of counsel on the brief were David R. Marsh and Lisa A. Adelson, of Washington, DC; and David E. Korn, Senior Assistant General Counsel, Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, of Washington, DC.

[692 F.3d 1305]



William G. Barber, Pirkey Barber LLP, of Austin, TX, for amicus curiae American Intellectual Property Law Association on rehearing en banc in the McKesson appeal.


Julie Samuels, Electronic Frontier Foundation, of San Francisco, CA, for amicus curiae Electronic Frontier Foundation on rehearing en banc in the McKesson appeal.
With her on the brief was Michael Barclay.

Sanford E. Warren, Jr., Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, of Dallas, TX, for amicus curiae Encore Wire Corporation on rehearing en banc in the McKesson appeal.
With him on the brief was Rex S. Heinke, of Los Angeles, CA.

Jerry R. Selinger, Patterson & Sheridan LLP, of Houston, TX, for amicus curiae Altera Corporation, et al. on rehearing en banc in the McKesson appeal.
With him on the brief were B. Todd Patterson; and Gero G. McClellan, of Greensboro, NC.

Garreth A. Sarosi, of MetroPCS Wireless, Inc. of Richardson, TX, for amicus curiae MetroPCS Wireless, Inc. on rehearing en banc in the McKesson appeal.
With him on the brief was Mark A. Stachiw. On the brief for CTIA–The Wireless Association were Gregory P. Stone, Andrew W. Song and Heather E. Takahashi, Munger, Tolles & Olson, LLP, of Los Angeles, CA.

Edward R. Reines, Weil, Gotshal & Manges, LLP, of Redwood Shores, CA, for amici curiae Cisco Systems, Inc., et al. on rehearing en banc in the McKesson appeal.
With him on the brief was Nathan Greenblatt.

Charles A. Weiss, New York Intellectual Property Law Association, of New York, NY, for amicus curiae New York Intellectual Property Law Association, on rehearing en banc in the McKesson appeal.
With him on the brief were John M. Hintz and Theresa M. Gillis.

Eric L. Abbott, Shuffle Master, Inc.
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
200 cases
  • Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
    • May 13, 2015
  • Carnegie Mellon Univ. v. Marvell Tech. Grp., Ltd.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania
    • September 23, 2013
    ......      [986 F.Supp.2d 582] Semiconductor, Inc. (collectively “Marvell”), alleging that ... Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., 692 ......
  • Generac Power Sys., Inc. v. Kohler Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Wisconsin
    • November 29, 2012
    ...... Therefore, the term "network" cannot be limited to solely digital networks.         Turning next to whether the term "network" must be ... See, e.g., Akamai Tech., Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., 692 F.3d 1301, 1322-23 (Fed. ...Cir. 2003); Joy Techs., Inc. v. Flakt, Inc., 6 F.3d 770, 773 (Fed. Cir. 1993); Mowry v. ......
  • Generac Power Sys., Inc. v. Kohler Co., Case No. 11-CV-1120-JPS
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Wisconsin
    • November 20, 2012
    ...step thereof as the agent of or under the direct control of Kohler and/or TES. See, e.g., Akamai Tech., Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., 692 F.3d 1301, 1322-23 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Linear Tech. Corp. v. ITC, 566 F.3d 1049, 1060 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Ormco Corp. v. Align Tech., Inc., 463 F.3d 1299......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
19 firm's commentaries
  • Patent Law And The Supreme Court: Certiorari Petitions Denied - July 2013
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • July 19, 2013
    ...Circuit en banc rendered their judgment in the cases consolidated in Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc. (reported at 692 F.3d 1301) on the question of the propriety and operation of the so-called "single-entity rule," previously announced by a panel of the Federal Circuit......
  • Developments In Patent Law 2013: Court Decisions December 2012 To December 2013
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • January 6, 2014
    ...v. Akamai Techs., Inc., Supreme Court No. 12-786 (on petition for certiorari to review Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., 692 F.3d 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2012)). The Supreme Court has asked for the views of the U.S. Solicitor General on whether to accept this case. The Federal Circui......
  • Federal Circuit Expands The Definition Of Direct Infringement
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • September 4, 2015
    ...of a violation of the statutory provisions set forth therein related to direct infringement. Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Limelight Networks, 692 F. 3d 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (en banc). The Supreme Court rejected this approach, however, holding that inducement must be tied to an underlying act of ......
  • Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc., et al.
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • June 6, 2014
    ...to where it was about two years ago, before the Federal Circuit's en banc holding in Akamai Technologies v. Limelight Networks, Inc., 692 F. 3d 1301 (Fed. Cir. By way of background, prior to the en banc decision in Akamai, the Federal Circuit had repeatedly held that liability for inducemen......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
8 books & journal articles
  • Chapter §17.02 Inducing Infringement Under §271(b)
    • United States
    • Full Court Press Mueller on Patent Law Volume II: Patent Enforcement Title CHAPTER 17 Indirect Infringement
    • Invalid date
    ...Donald S. Chisum, Chisum on Patents §§17.04[2], [3] (1984) and cases cited therein).[10] Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., 692 F.3d 1301, 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (en banc) (citing Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A., 131 S. Ct. 2060, 2068 (2011)). See also Commil USA, LLC ......
  • Chapter §14.05 Divided Direct Infringement by Multiple Entities
    • United States
    • Full Court Press Mueller on Patent Law Volume II: Patent Enforcement Title CHAPTER 14 Analytical Framework for Patent Infringement
    • Invalid date
    ...satisfied the pleading requirements for divided infringement.--------Notes:[219] See Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., 692 F.3d 1301, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (en banc) (hereafter "Akamai II") ("in the case of method patents, parties that jointly practice a patented invention ca......
  • Drafting Patent Applications Covering Artificial Intelligence Systems
    • United States
    • ABA General Library Landslide No. 11-3, January 2019
    • January 1, 2019
    ...Alice . 18. 35 U.S.C. § 271. 19. Id. § 271(a). 20. Id. § 271(b). 21. Id. § 271(c). 22. Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., 692 F.3d 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2012). 23. Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., 797 F.3d 1020 (Fed. Cir. 2015). 24. Juan Carlos Perez, Google Wants Yo......
  • Chapter §14.06 Indirect Infringement Under §271(b) - (c): Overview
    • United States
    • Full Court Press Mueller on Patent Law Volume II: Patent Enforcement Title CHAPTER 14 Analytical Framework for Patent Infringement
    • Invalid date
    ...into two categories, one covered by §271(b) and the other covered by §271(c). [389] Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., 692 F.3d 1301, 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (en banc) (citing Deepsouth Packing Co. v. Laitram Corp., 406 U.S. 518, 526 (1972); Aro Mfg. Co. v. Convertible Top Repla......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT