Limelight Networks: A Comedy of Errors by SCOTUS*

By Eric Guttag
June 11, 2014

Back in 2012, I discussed in a two-part article (here and here) the conundrum created by the Federal Circuit’s joint infringement doctrine, as particularly reflected in its extremely discordant and fragmented en banc decision of almost 100 total pages in the combined cases of Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc. and McKesson Technologies, Inc. v. Epic Systems Corp. In an opinion over 30 pages long, a bare six judge per curiam majority found it unnecessary to resolve the joint infringement issue. Instead, the per curiam majority ruled that the Akamai Technologies and McKesson Technologies cases should be resolved by applying the doctrine of inducing (indirect) infringement under Section 271(b). The majority also ruled that such indirect infringement could occur as long as all steps of the claimed method are performed, but didn’t requiring that all steps be performed by a single actor.

In a decision barely reaching 11 pages, a unanimous Supreme Court in Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies reversed and remanded the Federal Circuit’s per curiam majority ruling in Akamai Technologies and McKesson Technologies. That the Supreme Court overturned the Federal Circuit’s per curiam majority ruling is not a surprise. But what is truly shocking are the factually inaccurate statements, as well as the problematical reasoning that appears in Justice Alito’s opinion for this unanimous Supreme Court. With all due respect, Alito’s opinion is an abysmal “comedy of errors.” (In terms of one factually inaccurate statement, Alito’s opinion has been characterized as “embarrassing” and rightly.)

So here are those “comedic errors’ in all their sordidness:


Comedic Error No. 1: Mischaracterizing the Federal Circuit’s Per Curiam Majority Ruling. This gaffe is the most egregious of these “comedic errors.” See page 6 of Alito’s slip opinion which says the following:

“The Federal Circuit’s contrary view would deprive §271(b) of ascertainable standards. If a defendant can be held liable under §271(b) for inducing conduct that does not constitute infringement, then how can a court assess when a patent holder’s rights have been invaded? What if a defendant pays another to perform just one step of a 12-step process, and no one performs the other steps, but that one step can be viewed as the most important step in the process? In that case the defendant has not encouraged infringement, but no principled reason prevents him from being held liable for inducement under the Federal Circuit’s reasoning, which permits inducement liability when fewer than all of a method’s steps have been performed within the meaning of the patent.” (Emphasis added.)

As others have observed, the “reasoning” of the Federal Circuit’s per curiam majority contains no such “view” that infringement liability (including inducing infringement liability under Section 271(b)) may be based upon anything other than that all steps of the claimed method must be performed by the accused infringer(s), whether by one actor or by a combination of several actors: “To be clear, we hold that all the steps of a claimed method must be performed in order to find induced infringement, but that it is not necessary to prove that all the steps were committed by a single entity.” See page 10 of the slip opinion from the Federal Circuit’s per curiam majority ruling. Such a faux pas by Alito’s opinion is not only astonishing, but frankly undermines the credibility of the ruling made by the Supreme Court because it is based upon a fundamental factual error, i.e., inaccurately characterizing the lower court’s (i.e., the Federal Circuit’s) ruling.



Comedic Error No. 2: Blindly Relying Upon the Deepsouth Packing Albatross. This “comedic error” is more subtle, but nonetheless reflects extremely shallow and rote analytical thinking in Alito’s opinion by relying upon the ruling in the Supreme Court’ 1972 Deepsouth Packing Co. v. Laitram Corp. decision (and a bare 5-4 majority ruling at that). This blind reliance by Alito’s opinion upon this case is particularly problematical to me because I’m intimately familiar with the Deepsouth Packing decision, as well as the 1984 enactment by Congress of Section 271(f) which was clearly intended to overrule that decision in its entirety. See Guttag, When Offshore Activities Become Infringing: Applying Section 271 to Activities that “Straddle” Territorial Borders, 14 Rich. J. Law & Tech., Issue 1, ¶4 (November 2007) at:

In commenting on the impact of Section 271(f), the sentence bridging pages 6 and 7 of Alito’s opinion says the following:

“As this provision illustrates, when Congress wishes to impose liability for inducing activity that does not constitute direct infringement, it knows precisely how to do so.”

That’s true, but what Alito and Our Judicial Mount Olympus won’t acknowledge is that Congress did “precisely” that by enacting Section 271(f) which at least implicitly (if not explicitly) overturned the two different doctrinal bases of the Supreme Court’s Deepsouth Packing ruling: (1) that U.S. patent laws do not apply extraterritorially unless Congress expressly says so (which SCOTUS refused to acknowledge in its 2007 Microsoft v. AT&T decision that Congress might have done in enacting Section 35 USC 271(f)); and (2) that infringement liability, be it direct, or indirect such as in the case of inducing infringement under Section 271(b), must always be predicated on one instance of direct infringement (something the Federal Circuit correctly observed in its 2001 Waymark Corp. v. Porta Systems Corp. decision that Congress completely and expressly did away in enacting Section 271(f)).


Comedic Error No. 3: Failure to Address What “Whoever Infringes” Means in Section 271(a). Given that Section 271(a) has been deemed to define what direct infringement is, you would have thought Alito’s opinion would have at least bothered to construe Section 271(a), including what is meant by “whoever infringes.” But paraphrasing the immortal words of explosives expert Corporal Miller of Guns of Navarone fame, all discussion in Alito’s opinion of what “whoever infringes” means in Section 271(a) is “missing, vanished.” In fact, Section III of Alito’s opinion completely “punts” on construing anything in Section 271(a):

“Our decision on the§271(b) question necessitates a remand to the Federal Circuit, and on remand, the Federal Circuit will have the opportunity to revisit the §271(a) question if it so chooses.”

That “punt” would have been fine if Section 271(a) had no impact on the question before the Supreme Court, namely, what constitutes inducing infringement under Section 271(b). But given that (1) direct infringement is defined by Section 271(a), and (b) that what constitutes direct infringement impacts what will be deemed to be inducing infringement in Section 271(b), it should have behooved Our Judicial Mount Olympus to at least construe (even in passing) what Section 271(a) means, and especially what “whoever infringes” means. But that necessary exercise is conspicuous by its absence from Section III of Alito’s opinion, something that must be causing Judge Newman to have fits of apoplexy, given that her concurring/dissenting opinion in the Federal Circuit’s en banc decision addresses (in some detail) what “whoever infringes” means in Section 271(a).


Comedic Error No. 4: Giving Those Otherwise Appropriating the Benefits of the Claimed Method a Technical “Get Out of Infringement Liability” Card. Besides tripping over itself in mischaracterizing the Federal Circuit’s per curiam majority ruling, this portion of Alito’s opinion further suggests that the accused infringer may escape liability by simply “paying another to perform just one step of” of the claimed method. Such “technical” avoidance of infringement liability while otherwise appropriating all the benefits of the claimed method is what the dissent in Deepsouth Packing “screamed” about, as well as contrary to intention of Congress which “plugged” such a loophole when it enacted Section 271(f). In fact, this suggestion by Alito’s opinion is in yet further derogation of the intent of Congress to “plug” yet another “technical” infringement avoidance mechanism when it enacted the 1994 amendment to Sections 271(a), 271(c), and 271(g) to subject a mere “offer for sale” of the claimed invention to infringement liability (whether or not the claimed invention was even in the possession of the accused infringer, or even existed in the first place).

Admittedly, and as was demonstrated by the confusion of Our Judicial Mount Olympus during oral argument, the infringement liability issues posed by Limelight Networks are complex, difficult to resolve, and require applying infringement statutes that are not easily applied to today’s Internet technologies. Nevertheless, that does not excuse the utter carelessness in Alito’s opinion, as well as its disingenuous “scolding” of the Federal Circuit’s analysis of the situation in Limelight Networks as showing a “fundamental[] misunderstanding [of] what it means to infringe a method patent.” The Federal Circuit’s mammoth opinion at least tried to “analyze” the alleged infringement situation (as well as the relevant infringement statutes) in Limelight Networks, while Alito’s miniscule opinion did nothing of the sort. Once more, Our Judicial Mount Olympus appears to operate in an alternate “patent law universe” that we “mere mortals” who inhabit the “real patent law universe” just look at with frustration.


*© 2014 Eric W. Guttag. Posted on IPWatchdog on June 11, 2014.

The Author

Eric Guttag

Eric Guttag  
Mr. Guttag has over 38 years of corporate and private intellectual property law experience on patent, trademark, copyright, trade secret and unfair competition matters, computer and Internet law, including patent application drafting, prosecution, and patentability studies; infringement and validity studies; international patent prosecution; patent and know-how licensing; consulting, confidentiality, clinical study and research agreements; trademark searches and opinions; trademark registration and prosecution; trademark freedom-to-use studies and trademark litigation and dispute resolution.

Warning & Disclaimer: The pages, articles and comments on do not constitute legal advice, nor do they create any attorney-client relationship. The articles published express the personal opinion and views of the author as of the time of publication and should not be attributed to the author’s employer, clients or the sponsors of Read more.

Discuss this

There are currently 14 Comments comments.

  1. patent leather June 11, 2014 4:44 pm

    Good article, Eric. #1 is really a doozy. I am dreading D-Day (the Alice decision)

  2. EG June 11, 2014 6:14 pm


    Thanks for the kind word. You and me both are “sweating bullets” over what Our Judicial Mount Olympus does with CLS Bank. Stay tuned for this coming Monday (cringe).

  3. patent leather June 11, 2014 9:40 pm

    is Alice definitely coming out this Monday?

  4. EG June 12, 2014 7:40 am


    Don’t know for sure, just a guess given that we’re running out of Mondays in June.

  5. American Cowboy June 12, 2014 8:48 am

    Patent leather, I don’t know if Alice is coming out this Monday, but maybe her girlfriend does.

  6. Gene Quinn June 12, 2014 9:07 am

    Don’t forget that there will be decisions released by SCOTUS at 10am this morning as well.

  7. EG June 12, 2014 9:35 am


    Thanks for the notice that there may be more SCOTUS decisions coming out today. I was previously under the impression that they came out only on Mondays.

  8. EG June 12, 2014 9:47 am

    To all:

    Hal Wegner just posted an article on claiming post-Limelight Networks: . While I would still include method claims for Internet-based technologies, Limelight Networks makes it imperative to reduce the number of steps to as few as possible (i.e., a 12-step method like in Limelight Networks should be avoided).

    Also, I would, where possible, include system claims for such Internet-based technologies to get the benefit of the much easier to prove Centillion Data Systems, LLC v. Qwest Communications International, Inc. standard for infringement. In Centillion, the Federal Circuit ruled that “use” (infringement) of a patented system occurs when a party puts that system “into service,” even if that party does not exercise “physical or direct control over each individual element of the” patented system. That avoids the potential “multiple actor” dilemma for Internet-based method claims.

  9. Anon June 12, 2014 10:56 am

    Have not seen it released yet, – but POM v. Coke is out.

  10. Anon June 12, 2014 10:57 am

    Gene – every message is still being caught in moderation.

    Perhaps I tripped a flag by missing the spam control question box too often and need a clearing reset…?

    (feel free NOT to post this message)

  11. Gene Quinn June 12, 2014 3:42 pm


    It is not just you that is having a problem. I can’t understand what is going on. It started a few days ago. The comments are not going to spam, they are just being held for moderation despite the settings. I’ve noticed several other peculiarities with WordPress lately, which seem to have started for no reason, which is of course suspicious.

    As we grow we continue to face more problems. We have hand multiple denial of service attacks over the last few weeks, enormous amount of comment spam that has taxed the server (which lead to the spam control question), and a variety of other issues. I’ve hired a security firm. The audit is just about complete and we will be moving forward with recommendations soon. I hope this will be as seamless as possible, but should result in a more reliable server that has better protections and less drain on our WordPress installation.

    In terms of what this could be… I see this happening primarily with comments from Anon and EG. Are you guys signed in to an account when you are trying to post comments? Not sure why that would matter, but in some browsers when I’m signed in I cannot comment because the spam control question isn’t present or doesn’t operate properly.


  12. Anon June 12, 2014 4:14 pm

    Thanks for the update Gene – not signed into any proprietary system (using Kapersky controls for virus protection) if that helps..

    I thought that perhaps my first few posts missing the spam control question may have marked my inputs in some way, but I am at a loss as to why else there may be issues.

  13. Gene Quinn June 12, 2014 5:35 pm


    I have no clue. But will keep trying to figure out what is going on. I hope things are ironed out before Alice v. CLS bank issues. What a comment nightmare that will be otherwise.


  14. step back June 15, 2014 7:37 am

    Good point on the “Whoever” part.

    Corporations are individuals (whoevers) but joint ventures (to infringe) are not?
    Why not?