## Facts

- Akamai Technologies, Inc., an exclusive licensee of U.S. Patent No. 6,108,703 (owned by MIT), asserted a method patent covering delivery of electronic data using a content delivery network (CDN).
- Limelight Networks, Inc. operated a CDN and performed several claimed method steps.
- A key method step—“tagging” content for CDN delivery—was performed by Limelight’s customers rather than Limelight.
- A jury found infringement and awarded roughly $41.5 million in damages.
- Applying then-governing Federal Circuit law requiring that all method steps be performed by or attributable to a single entity for direct infringement, the district court held Limelight was not a direct infringer and entered judgment for Limelight; it also concluded inducement could not lie absent direct infringement.
- The Federal Circuit, sitting en banc, reversed, holding inducement liability could exist even if no single actor committed direct infringement.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari to review whether inducement can be found without direct infringement by any single actor.

## Issues

1. Whether a defendant may be liable for induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) when no person has committed direct infringement under § 271(a) (or any other provision) because the steps of a method claim are divided among multiple actors.
2. Whether courts may impose inducement liability in divided-performance cases by expanding § 271(b) standards rather than addressing the requirements of direct infringement under § 271(a).

## Decision

- The Supreme Court unanimously reversed the Federal Circuit and remanded.
- The Court held that a defendant is not liable for inducing infringement under § 271(b) when no one has directly infringed under § 271(a) or any other statutory provision.
- The Court rejected the Federal Circuit’s rule as inconsistent with the Patent Act’s structure because it treated inducement as untethered from direct infringement.
- The Court left open whether the Federal Circuit’s prior interpretation of § 271(a) in multi-actor method cases was too narrow, indicating that any gap should be addressed through direct-infringement doctrine rather than by altering inducement.

## Legal Principles

- Induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) requires an act of direct infringement; inducement liability must be predicated on direct infringement.
- When performance of all steps of a claimed method is not attributable to any one person under the governing standard for § 271(a), the method has not been directly infringed and there can be no inducement.
- Creating inducement liability without a direct infringer would generate indeterminate standards and force development of separate infringement regimes for §§ 271(a) and 271(b).
- The Patent Act’s structure indicates that when Congress intends liability predicated on conduct that is not itself direct infringement, it does so expressly (illustrated by § 271(f)); courts should not supply comparable expansions by reworking § 271(b).
- Policy concerns about evasion through divided performance cannot justify changing inducement doctrine in a way that conflicts with statutory text and structure.

## Conclusion

The Court held that inducement under § 271(b) cannot exist absent direct infringement under § 271(a) or another statutory provision, reversing the Federal Circuit’s attempt to impose inducement liability in divided-performance method cases without a directly liable infringer and remanding for further proceedings.


Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Techs., Inc., 572 U.S. 915 (2014)