Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that direct infringement is required in an induced infringe- ment case, because a method patent “is not infringed un- less all the steps are carried out”
• noting that induced infringement lies “if, but only if,” the patentee makes a showing of direct infringement
• finding that a claim reciting a specific, multiple-step process was drawn to the abstract concept of mitigating settlement risk using a third party
• recognizing that a “method’s steps have not all been performed as claimed by the patent unless they are all attributable to the same defendant, either because the defendant actually performed those steps or because he directed or controlled others who performed them”
• explaining that inducement liability can arise “if, but only if, there is direct infringement”
• explaining that “inducement liability may arise if, but only if, there is direct infringement,” and declining to distinguish contributory infringement and inducement “for these purposes” because they “spring from common stock” (cleaned up)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).