Massachusetts
07 July 2016
Reporter: Barney Dixon
Final judgement in Akami v Limelight
Limelight Networks will pay Akami Technologies $51 million in damages, a US district court has ruled.

The final judgement, issued on 1 July by the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts, puts an end to a patent infringement case that has lasted more than eight years.

Akami Technologies had claimed that competitor Limelight infringed patented technology for a content delivery network.

Most significantly, a divided Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit made the decision in 2012 that Limelight could be held liable for inducing infringement.

But the Supreme Court overruled that decision in 2014, stating: “Liability for inducement must be predicated on direct infringement.”

This meant that Limelight could not be held liable for indirect infringement unless it was also liable for direct infringement.

The $51 million damages award reflects matches what was originally awarded to Akamai by a jury for Limelight's infringement prior to 2008, plus interest, according to the company.

Akamai has also lodged a new patent infringement lawsuit against Limelight in Virginia. Scheduled for trial in January 2017, it involves a patent from the same family and seeks additional damages for Limelight's alleged ongoing infringement after 2008.

Following the final judgement, Aaron Ahola, deputy general counsel at Akamai, said: “We are extremely pleased after ten years of litigation to have a final judgement entered in Akamai's favour that recognises Limelight's infringement and the harm it caused.”

“Akamai is at the forefront of innovation on the internet and today's judgment provides true validation of the value of our intellectual property. We will continue to vigorously protect our intellectual property to maximise shareholder value."

Limelight, however, also argued victory on its side.

“Since August of 2015, we have allocated precious resources to eliminate the possibility of a permanent injunction and address our belief that the ultimate damages payable would be considerably less than the amounts requested in this case,” said Robert Lento, chief executive officer of Limelight.

“We participate in an attractive industry and remain focused on improving Limelight’s operational and financial performance and are thankful for the continuing support of our customers, employees and shareholders.”

More Technology news
The latest news from IPPro The Internet
Join Our Newsletter

Sign up today and never
miss the latest news or an issue again

Subscribe now
Final judgement in Akami v Limelight
07 July 2016 | Massachusetts | Reporter: Barney Dixon
Limelight Networks will pay Akami Technologies $51 million in damages, a US district court has ruled...
Getty Images takes aim at Google
03 May 2016 | Brussels | Reporter: Tammy Facey
Getty Images has filed a competition law complaint against Google with the European Commission over the internet company’s Images search engine...
FAST and V.i. Labs tackle unintentional infringement
11 April 2016 | Maidenhead | Reporter: Tammy Facey
The Federation Against Software Theft and V.i. Labs have teamed up to launch an educational campaign aimed at businesses that unintentionally use unlicensed software...
Oracle demands £9.3 billion from Google
30 March 2016 | California | Reporter: Tammy Facey
Oracle is seeking $9.3 billion in damages from Google, recently unsealed court documents have revealed...
IT manager admits to IP losses
08 September 2015 | Washington DC | Reporter: Tammy Facey
An IT manager has admitted to sending damaging computer code to his former employer’s servers that destroyed the software company’s intellectual property...
EFF critiques Argentine censorship draft
13 August 2015 | Washington DC | Reporter: Tammy Facey
The Argentine House of Representatives debate over reforms to the National Anti-discrimination Act are too broad and ambiguous, says the Electronic Frontier Foundation...
Google fails to overturn FRAND ruling
06 August 2015 | California | Reporter: Mark Dugdale and Tammy Facey
Google acted in bad faith by trying to charge Microsoft a premium on patents essential to WiFi and video compression standards, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has ruled...