This appeal returns to us following remand from the United States Supreme Court. See Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Techs., Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2111 (2014). Because our prior decisions in BMC Resources, Inc. v. Paymentech, L.P., 498 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2007), and Muniauction, Inc. v. Thomson Corp., 532 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2008), directly apply to the facts of this case and because the statutory framework of 35 U.S.C. § 271 does not admit to the sweeping notions of common-law tort liability argued in this case, we again conclude that because Limelight Networks, Inc. (“Limelight”) did not perform all of the steps of the asserted method claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,108,703 (the “’703 patent”) and because the record contains no basis on which to impose liability on Limelight for the actions of its customers who carried out the other steps, Limelight has not directly infringed the ’703 patent under § 271(a). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s finding of noninfringement and do not reach Limelight’s cross-appeal regarding damages. We also confirm our previously reinstated affirmance of the district court’s judgment of noninfringement of U.S. Patents No. 6,553,413 (the “’413 patent”) and No. 7,103,645 (the “’645 patent”). See Akamai, 629 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2010), which was vacated, 419 F. App’x 989 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (en banc), and then partially reinstated. Order No. 2009-1372 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 27, 2012) (en banc).
Rejection from the USPTO? Patent or trademark, we can help.
Please visit us at Gehrke & Associates, SC.