Account

Sign in to access your account and subscription

Divided Infringement after the Supreme Court's Decision in <i>Akamai</i>

In Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Techs., Inc., the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that inducement of infringement under 35 U.S.C. '271(b) requires an act of direct infringement under '271(a) ' that is, one entity must perform all steps of a claimed method.

8 minute read July 01, 2014 at 02:01 PM
By
Scott F. Llewellyn And Ryan Malloy
Divided Infringement after the Supreme Court's Decision in <i>Akamai</i>

In Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Techs., Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2111 (2014), the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that inducement of infringement under 35 U.S.C. '271(b) requires an act of direct infringement under '271(a) ' that is, one entity must perform all steps of a claimed method.

This premium content is locked for The Intellectual Property Strategist subscribers only

ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN The Intellectual Property Strategist

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

Already have an account? Sign In Now

For enterprise-wide or corporate access, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or call 1-877-256-2473.

NOT FOR REPRINT

© 2026 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.

Continue Reading

The Copyright Royalty Board (CRB), which works under the umbrella of the Librarian of Congress, sets statutory-license royalty terms and rates. The U.S. Courts of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit recently issued two notable decisions about the CRB.

October 01, 2026