Liability for Inducement of Patent Infringement Requires that Induced Entity Perform Every Element of Infringement

摘要

Akamai Technologies, Inc., a respondent in the case of Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc., [No. 12-786 (US Sup. 06/02/2014)] is the exclusive licensee of a patent that claims a method of delivering electronic data using a content delivery network (CDN). Petitioner, Limelight Networks, Inc., also operates a CDN and carries out several of the steps claimed in the patent, but its customers, rather than Limelight itself, perform a step of the patent known as "tagging." The Supreme Court explained that under Federal Circuit case law, liability for direct infringement under 35 U. S. C. § 271 (a) requires performance of all steps of a method patent to be attributable to a single party. This position was most recently refined in Muniauction, Inc. v. Thomson Corp. [532 F. 3d 1318.] The district court concluded that Limelight could not have directly infringed the patent at issue because performance of the tagging step could not be attributed to it. The en bane Federal Circuit reversed, holding that a defendant who performed some steps of a method patent and encouraged others to perform the rest could be liable for inducement of infringement even if no one was liable for direct infringement. The en bane court concluded that the evidence could support liability for Limelight on an inducement theory and remanded for further proceedings.