In Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., en banc Fed. Cir., No. 2009-1372, August 13, 2015 opinion, the en banc Federal Circuit held that direct infringement of a method claim was established even though the defendant did not perform all of the method steps, because the performance of the last step by the defendant’s customers was attributable to the defendant.
Akamai has a patent on a method of delivering web site content by delivering the graphical material to a wide network of servers. One of the steps that requires content providers to place appropriate tags on the graphical elements. Limelight’s process is slightly different. Rather than doing the tagging itself, it provides customers with the information for them to do the tagging.
The original panel decision found no indirect infringement of the Akamai method claim where no single party performed all of the claim steps. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded. In a 6-5 decision, the en banc court rejected the single-entity rule in a per curiam opinion.
The per curiam en banc opinion noted that the Supreme Court has suggested the possibility that the prior en banc Federal Circuit decision read Section 271(a) too narrowly. The Court reasoned that direct infringement of a method claim occurs where all of the method steps “are performed by or attributable to a single entity,” rejecting the “single entity” rule. Where more than one actors practicing the method steps, a court must determine whether acts of one are attributable to another “such that a single entity is responsible for the infringement,” according to the per curiam opinion.
The district court’s judgment of noninfringement as a matter of law was reversed, and the jury’s infringement verdict was reinstated. The case was returned to the appellate panel for resolution of various remaining issues on appeal. Not participating in this decision were Judges Taranto, Chen and Stoll.
Akamai Technologies 有一个方法专利，可以让用户通过图像资料把网页内容传到多个网站服务器。Limelight Networks 使用的方法只有微小差别，就是要求用户自己对图像放上标签。Limelight Networks 有教用户如何做这一步。
Akamai 起诉 Limelight Networks 专利直接侵权。初级法庭认为Limelight Networks 没有，因为271(a)直接侵权要求被告完成所有侵权步骤，Limelight Networks 没有做Akamai方法的最后一步。Akamai 上诉，联邦法庭认为Limelight有直接侵权。Limelight 上诉到最高法院，最高法院认为联邦法庭对271(a) 条的解读范围太狭隘，打回重判。
最高法院认为联邦法庭对271(a) 条的解读范围太狭隘之后，联邦法庭重新解释法律定义，认为Limelight 侵犯了Akamai 的专利。虽然Limelight没有做Akamai 方法的最后一步，但它要求它的用户自己做，用户自己做的最后一步是由Limelight的引导所致。由此，联邦法庭将271(a)直接专利侵权的解读扩大到多个当事人，被告的直接侵权行为可由多个当事人完成，只要所有侵权的行为是被告所引起。
