Case Summary
**Case Summary: Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc.**
**Court:** United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
**Docket Number:** 2603099
**Date:** (Specific date may vary; please refer to appropriate legal databases for precise date)
**Judges:** (List specific judges if available)
**Background:**
Akamai Technologies, Inc. filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Limelight Networks, Inc. The central issue in the case revolves around Akamai's claim that Limelight's content delivery services infringed on its patented technology which enables the efficient delivery of web content.
**Facts:**
Akamai holds a patent (U.S. Patent No. 6,108,703) related to technology that allows for the distributed delivery of content over the Internet. Akamai alleged that Limelight utilized this technology in its operations without authorization.
**Legal Issues:**
The key legal questions in this case included:
1. Whether Limelight infringed on Akamai’s patent.
2. Whether Limelight could be liable for infringing a method claim when it designed its system in a way that split the steps of the patented method between Limelight and its customers.
**Decision:**
The Federal Circuit ultimately ruled in favor of Limelight, addressing the method claim's infringement under the standard requirement that all steps of a claimed method must be performed by a single entity to establish direct infringement. The court concluded that since Limelight's users also performed some of the steps of Akamai's patented method, Limelight could not be held liable for infringement as a single entity—thereby ruling that Akamai failed to prove direct infringement.
**Impact:**
This decision was significant in the context of patent law, particularly with respect to method claims and the interpretation of infringement where multiple parties are involved. The ruling emphasized the importance of identifying a single entity responsible for performing all steps of a patented method to establish direct infringement, potentially affecting how patent claims are construed and enforced against multiple actors.
**Conclusion:**
The case of Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc. raises important considerations regarding the complexities of patent law in the technology sector. The interpretation of direct infringement remains crucial for future patent holders and may influence how technology companies structure their services to avoid infringement claims.
(Note: For the exact wording of the decision, concurring or dissenting opinions, and specific dates, please consult the official court documents or legal databases.)