Tag: Akamai

Akamai Lesson: Craft Claims For Single Party Infringement

Scott R. Bialecki

By now, you have undoubtedly received ten thousand E-mails informing you of the Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc. in which the Court continued to wrestle with the notion of divided infringement under 35 U.S.C.§ 271.   In short, the Court refused to extend a new joint tortfeasor approach to direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), noting that to do so would make the other indirect infringement provisions of §§ 271(b) and (c) redundant.  Instead, the Court reiterated that for direct infringement under §271(a) to occur, all steps of a method claim must be performed by or attributable to a single entity.   

When can the combined acts of multiple parties be “attributed” to a single party?  Yet again, the Court pointed to a “mastermind” theory in which one party exercises “direction or control” over the entire process to the point that every step is attributable to the controlling party. 

The Court also outlined when vicarious liability might trigger direct infringement under §271(a): (1) principal-agent relationships; (2) contractual relationships; and (3) joint enterprises.  The most interesting was “joint enterprise,” which occurs when there is an agreement between members sharing a “community of pecuniary interest” in a “common purpose,” with each having an “equal right to voice direction of the enterprise,” thereby giving “equal right of control.”  What’s important to note is that none of these scenarios involved arms-length seller-customer relationships. 

Since the Supreme Court last decided Akamai, the safest bet for patent prosecutors has been to craft claims to capture infringing activity by a single party. The Federal Circuit’s comments that “the claim drafter is the least cost avoider of the problem of unenforceable patents due to joint infringement” only reinforce this approach. Claiming the acts of your customers is rarely beneficial and, in light of the Federal Circuit’s recent decision, will not make your infringement case any easier.

What Will Be the Standard for Direct Infringement for Method Claims?

Scott R. Bialecki
Much has been written about the Supreme Court’s recent Akamai decision.  However, a more interesting topic is whether the Federal Circuit will revisit its standard for direct infringement of a method claim. In Muniauction, the Federal Circuit held that for direct infringement of a method claim to occur, all of the claimed steps have to be attributable to a single actor, either by performing them itself or by directing or controlling others to perform them. In Akamai, the Supreme Court appeared to question this standard, stating that “[a]ssuming without deciding that the Federal Circuit’s holding in Muniauction is correct…” and allowing the Federal Circuit the opportunity “to revisit the § 271(a) question if it so chooses.”  Even though it acknowledged that under the Federal Circuit’s standard, a party could evade liability by dividing up performance of the steps of a method claim with another which the party did not direct or control, the Supreme Court was unwilling to create a new standard for indirect infringement that did not have a statutory basis. Until the Federal Circuit changes the law, the Muniauction standard stands- i.e., there can be no direct infringement of a method claim if all the steps are not attributable to one actor.  More importantly, if there is no direct infringement, there can be no indirect infringement. Patent prosecutors should keep this in mind when crafting claims and clients should consider this when they participate in a multi-step process.  Claims should be drafted to ensnare a single actor and clients should evaluate whether one entity directs or controls an entire process when a method patent claim is at issue.