Federal Circuit requires agency relationship or contractual obligation for joint infringement
January 04, 2011
To establish infringement of a method claim, a patent holder must show that all of the recited steps in the claim are performed by a defendant. If the recited steps are not performed by a single entity, but by the defendant acting in concert with another party, the patent holder may still show “joint infringement” if the defendant controls or directs the activities of another party.In Akamai Technologies v. Limelight Networks, the Federal Circuit looked at what types of activities qualify as directing or controlling the activity of a another party. The court opted for a bright-line rule that requires either a principal-agent relationship or a contractual obligation to perform the steps of the claim.More details of Akamai Techs. v. Limelight Networks after the jump.The patent in question relates to a method of delivering large amounts of Internet content without crashing or bogging down. In particular, a hosting service hosts embedded objects (such as pictures, videos, graphics and the like) that are embedded in a website. Therefore, a webpage owner might use the services of a hosting service to host the embedded objects within their webpage. Most of the steps of the asserted patent claims are clearly performed by the hosting service. However, one of the recited steps is to tag the embedded objects so that they direct a visitor’s browser to the hosting site to retrieve the embedded objects. The tagging step is generally performed by the webpage owner.In this case, the defendant, Limelight Networks, ran a hosting service. It was undisputed that Limelight did not itself tag the embedded objects as required by the claims. However, the patent holder alleged that Limelight was liable under the joint infringement theory because Limelight controlled and directed the tagging step. Specifically, Limelight gave detailed instructions to the webpage owners on how to perform the tagging step and had a standard contract with the webpage owners that required the webpage owners to perform the tagging step if they wanted to utilize the hosting services.The Federal Circuit first announced its bright-line rule that joint infringement only occurs when there is a principal-agent relationship or a contractual obligation to perform the steps. In applying the rule, it stated that the test of a principal-agent relationship is whether “both parties . . . consent that the agent is acting on the principal’s behalf and subject to the principal’s control.” The detailed instructions on how to use the services were not enough to create a principal-agent relationship. Furthermore, the standard contract between Limelight and the webpage owners using its hosting services did not obligate the webpage owners to perform the tagging step. The webpage owners needed to perform the tagging step if they wanted to use the hosting services for a particular embedded item, but they were not obligated to perform the step. Therefore, the court found no joint infringement.The court did point out that it is generally possible for a patent owner to avoid the joint infringement issue by drafting claims that include steps that will be performed by a single party. Furthermore, if those claims were not so drafted in the initial patent, it may be possible to have the claims reissued.To read the full opinion in Akamai Techs. v. Limelight Networks, click here.
Post has no comments.
Post a Comment

Captcha Image
Return to the Filewrapper Blog
  Newer Posts Older Posts  


The attorneys of McKee, Voorhees & Sease, P.L.C. designed this blog as an informational and educational resource about intellectual property law for our clients, other attorneys, and the public as a whole. Our goal is to provide cutting-edge information about recent developments in intellectual property law, including relevant case law updates, proposed legislation, and intellectual property law in the news.


McKee, Voorhees & Sease, P.L.C. provides this blog for general informational purposes only. By using this blog, you agree that the information on this blog does not constitute legal or other professional advice and no attorney-client or other relationship is created between you and McKee, Voorhees & Sease, P.L.C. Do not consider this blog to be a substitute for obtaining legal advice from a qualified, licensed attorney. While we try to revise this blog on a regular basis, it may not reflect the most current legal developments. We consciously refrain from expressing opinions on this blog and instead, offer it as a form of information and education, however if there appears an expression of opinion, realize that those views are indicative of the individual and not of the firm as a whole

Connect with MVS

Enter your name and email address to recieve the latest news and updates from us and our attorneys.

Subscribe to: MVS Newsletter

Subscribe to: Filewrapper® Blog Updates

  I have read and agree to the terms and conditions of McKee, Voorhees & Sease, P.L.C.