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

Decision Date31 August 2012
Docket Number2010–1291.,2009–1416,2009–1380,2009–1417,Nos. 2009–1372,s. 2009–1372
Citation692 F.3d 1301
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.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

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.

Raymond P. Niro, Niro, Haller & Niro, of Chicago, IL, for amici curiaeCascades 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 curiaeAristocrat 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 curiaeShuffle Master, Inc. on rehearing en banc in the Akamai appeals.

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

Benjamin G. Jackson, Myriad Genetics, Inc., of Salt Lake City, UT, for amicus curiaeMyriad 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 curiaeAmerican 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 curiaeConejo 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 curiaeWashington 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 curiaeAltera 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 curiaeNew 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 curiaeThomson 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 David Swetnam–Burland and Stacy O. Stitham.

Garreth A. Sarosi, MetroPSC Wireless, Inc. of Richardson, TX, for amicus curiaeMetroPCS 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 curiaeApple 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 curiaeSan 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 curiaeCisco 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 curiaeAristocrat 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 curiaeMyriad 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.

William G. Barber, Pirkey Barber LLP, of Austin, TX, for amicus curiaeAmerican 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 curiaeEncore 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 curiaeAltera 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 curiaeMetroPCS 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 curiaeCisco 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. of Las Vegas, NV, for amicus curiae Shuffle...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
197 cases
  • Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit
    • 13 d3 Maio d3 2015
  • Carnegie Mellon Univ. v. Marvell Tech. Grp., Ltd.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania
    • 23 d1 Setembro d1 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
    • 29 d4 Novembro d4 2012
    ... ... Therefore, the term "network" cannot be limited to solely digital networks. Turning next to whether the term "network" must be limited to a ... 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 ... ...
  • Netgear, Inc. v. Ruckus Wireless, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Delaware
    • 30 d1 Setembro d1 2013
    ... ... Med. Device Techs., Inc., 616 F.3d 1309, 1316 (Fed.Cir.2010) (citing Applied Med. Res ... 498 F.3d 1373, 1378 (Fed.Cir.2007), overruled on other grounds by Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., 692 F.3d 1301 ... ...
  • Get Started for Free
19 firm's commentaries
  • Patent Law And The Supreme Court: Certiorari Petitions Denied - July 2013
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • 19 d5 Julho d5 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
    • 6 d1 Janeiro d1 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
    • 4 d5 Setembro d5 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
    • 6 d5 Junho d5 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......
  • Get Started for Free
9 books & journal articles
  • Responding to the Complaint
    • United States
    • ABA General Library ANDA litigation: strategies and tactics for pharmaceutical patent litigators. Second edition
    • 23 d4 Junho d4 2016
    ...(en banc) (stating that “patent infringement is a strict liability offense”); see also Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., 692 F.3d 1301, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (en banc) (Linn, J., dissenting) (“The fact that the statutory tort of infringement has no mental state requirement, a......
  • 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 ......
  • Appendix A-1 Paragraph IV Notice Letter
    • United States
    • ABA General Library ANDA litigation: strategies and tactics for pharmaceutical patent litigators. Second edition
    • 23 d4 Junho d4 2016
    ...Paymentech, L.P. , 498 F.3d 1373, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2007), overruled on other grounds by Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc. , 692 F.3d 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (per curiam). An entity is liable for direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) when it practices every element of the c......
  • 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......
  • Get Started for Free

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