I have a bad feeling about this.Limelight is not denying patent infringement in a way, but shoving the onus on to its customers.Not good at all.
Or am I misinterpreting?
Akamai owns a method patent for delivery of web content, consisting of placing some of a provider’s content elements on a set of replicated servers and modifying the provider’s web page to instruct browsers to retrieve content from those servers. Akamai sued Limelight, alleging direct and indirect infringement. Limelight maintains a network of servers that places some content on its servers. Limelight does not modify content pages itself, but instructs customers on doing so.
In the district court, Limelight and Epic were held not to infringe because they did not perform the steps in the method. The Federal Circuit reversed. When a single actor commits all elements of infringement, that actor is liable for direct infringement (35 U.S.C. 271(a)). When a single actor induces another to commit all elements of infringement, the first actor is liable for induced infringement (35 U.S.C. 271(b)). When the acts necessary to give rise to direct infringement are shared between actors, a single party may be liable for induced infringement.
Limelight will win. * My 2-cents.
1. The lower court will not like the case being sent back to them; questioning their decision.
2. Judges have previously noted that future progression of tech and products depend on parts
that already exisit in the open market; companies may not have exclusivity on all the parts in our
free market or competition and innovation would not be possible, thus, improving on a product
using some of the moving parts. Example, Coke does not have a patent on Carbonated Water nor Apple on the internet, etc.
Essentially, a great buying opportunity at these low prices.