Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc.
629 F.3d 1311
| Fed. Cir. | 2010Background
- Akamai and MIT sued Limelight for infringement of the '645, '703, and '413 patents; a jury found infringement of the '703 claims 19-21 and 34 with lost profits and royalties, but the district court entered JMOL overturning the verdict.
- Limelight provides a content delivery network service and instructs content providers how to tag and serve embedded objects, while content providers perform the tagging steps themselves.
- The district court instructed the jury on joint infringement under BMC Resources and Muniauction, requiring one party to control or direct the entire process or otherwise be vicariously liable.
- Limelight’s customers determine which content to deliver, perform the tagging, and serve the pages, while Limelight supplies instructions and infrastructure, but does not itself perform all claimed steps.
- On appeal, Akamai challenges the joint infringement rulings and also challenges claim constructions for the '645 and '413 patents, including the alphanumeric string limitation and the alternative DNS framework.
- The court ultimately affirms noninfringement of the '703 patent and noninfringement of the '645 and '413 patents, based on lack of agency/contractual obligation and proper claim constructions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Limelight infringes the '703 patent under joint infringement | Akamai argues Limelight directs/controls all steps via contract and instructions. | Limelight contends Muniauction bars joint liability absent an agency or obligation. | No joint infringement; no agency or contractual obligation. |
| Whether the '645/'413 claim construction requiring the alphanumeric string to include the object's original URL is correct | Akamai seeks broader construction not limited to URL inclusion. | Limelight argues district court correctly confines to original URL inclusion as the invention. | Yes, alphanumeric string must include the object's original URL. |
| Whether the district court properly imported an alternative DNS framework into the claims | Akamai contends no need to require an alternative DNS system in method claims. | Limelight asserts the claims explicitly recite an alternative DNS framework. | Properly included; the claims require the alternative DNS framework. |
Key Cases Cited
- BMC Resources, Inc. v. Paymentech, L.P., 498 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (direct infringement requires one party to perform all steps or control the entire process)
- Muniauction, Inc. v. Thomson Corp., 532 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (instructions alone not enough; agency/contractual obligation required for joint infringement)
- Honeywell Int'l, Inc. v. ITT Indus., Inc., 452 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (influent on how to construe 'invention' when specification clearly describes it)
- Netword, LLC v. Centraal Corp., 242 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (analysis of claimed invention boundaries and specification-based limitations)
- Dixson v. United States, 465 U.S. 482 (1984) (agency relationship requires manifestation of consent and control)