About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


2014 Wis. L. Rev. Online 1 (2014)

handle is hein.journals/wlron2 and id is 1 raw text is: LIMELIGHT V. AKAMAI: LIMITING INDUCED INFRINGEMENT MICHAEL A. CARRIER In Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc.,' the Supreme Court addressed the relationship between direct infringement under § 271(a)2 of the Patent Act and induced infringement under § 271(b).3 The Court held that a defendant could be liable for inducing infringement of a patented process only if a single party would have been liable for performing all of the steps constituting direct infringement. In this short article, I provide the background to the opinion, discuss the ruling, and offer four lessons. I. BACKGROUND Respondent Akamai was the exclusive licensee of U.S. Patent No. 6,108,703 (the '703 patent), which claims a method of delivering electronic data using a 'content delivery network' (CDN).4 Web site content providers entered into arrangements with Akamai to deliver content to users, and [t]he '703 patent provides for the designation of certain components of a content provider's Web site ... to be stored on Akamai's servers and accessed from those servers.s This process is called tagging. Petitioner Limelight also operates a CDN and carries out several of the steps claimed in the '703 patent. But instead of tagging those components of its customers' Web sites that it intends to store on its servers[,] . . . Limelight requires its customers to do their own tagging.' Akamai sued Limelight, and a jury found Limelight liable for infringement.9 Shortly afterwards, the Federal Circuit, in Muniauction, * Distinguished Professor, Rutgers School of Law. Copyright @ 2014 Michael A. Carrier. 1. 134 S. Ct. 2111 (2014). 2. 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) (2012) ([W]hoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention . .. infringes the patent.). 3. § 271(b) (Whoever actively induces infringement of a patent shall be liable as an infringer.). 4. Akamai, 134 S. Ct. at 2115. The other respondent, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, was the assignee of the patent. Id. This article refers to respondents as Akamai. 5. Id. 6. Id. 7. Id. 8. Id. 9. Id. at 2115-16.