Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

Akamai Technologies v. Limelight Networks

Date: 03-03-2008

Case Number: 1:06-cv-11109-RWZ

Judge: Rya W. Zobel

Court: United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Suffolk County

Plaintiff's Attorney: Richard C. Abati, Robert M. Buchanan, Jr., Carlos J. Perez-Albuerne, Stacy L. Blasberg, G. Mark Edgarton, Robert S. Frank, Jr., Elizabeth P. Wilkins, and Emma Drummond Becker, Choate, Hall & Stewart, LLP, Boston, Massachusetts and Sarah C. Columbia, McDermott Will & Emergy, LLP, Boston, Massachusetts

Defendant's Attorney: Amber T. Aubry, Robert G. Krupka, Alexander F. MacKInnon, Timothy G. Majors, Nick Saros, David Shukan, Christopher C. Smith, Regan A. Smith, Marc H. Cohen, Courtney Holohan, and Allison Worthy Buchner, Kirkland & Ellis, LLP, Los Angeles, California;
Nishita A. Doshi, Heller Ehrman, LLP, Menlo Park, California;
Daniel K. Hampton and Gael Mahony, Holland & Knight, LLP;
and
Edward S. Cheng and Anthony L. DeProspo, Jr., Sherin and Lodgen, LLP, Boston, Massachusetts

Description:

Akamai Technologies sued Limelight Networks on a patent infringement theory claiming that Limelight infringed on two key patents covering various aspects of its content distribution network. The patents, U.S. patents 6,108,703, and 6,553,413, are owned by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and licensed exclusively to Akamai. The 8,703 patent describes a "global hosting system" that includes a method of copying content from a web server to a network of caching servers around the world and directing browsers to the cached content by "prepending" a modified URL for the caching server to the URL for the original file.

Limelight asserted that it, like other companies that follow long-established Internet standards, did not infringe the patent in question.

Outcome:

Plaintiff's verdict finding that Limelight infringed on this “prepend” method and another so-called “CNAME” method claimed in the patent and awarded $40,102,000 to compensate for profits lost as a result of Limelight’s infringement, to which the jury affixed a royalty of $1,424,946, and a further $4 million in price erosion damages suffered by Akamai—accounting for the total award of $45,526,946.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Unknown

Defendant's Experts:

Unknown

Comments:

None

About This Case

What was the outcome of Akamai Technologies v. Limelight Networks?

The outcome was: Plaintiff's verdict finding that Limelight infringed on this “prepend” method and another so-called “CNAME” method claimed in the patent and awarded $40,102,000 to compensate for profits lost as a result of Limelight’s infringement, to which the jury affixed a royalty of $1,424,946, and a further $4 million in price erosion damages suffered by Akamai—accounting for the total award of $45,526,946.

Which court heard Akamai Technologies v. Limelight Networks?

This case was heard in United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Suffolk County, MA. The presiding judge was Rya W. Zobel.

Who were the attorneys in Akamai Technologies v. Limelight Networks?

Plaintiff's attorney: Richard C. Abati, Robert M. Buchanan, Jr., Carlos J. Perez-Albuerne, Stacy L. Blasberg, G. Mark Edgarton, Robert S. Frank, Jr., Elizabeth P. Wilkins, and Emma Drummond Becker, Choate, Hall & Stewart, LLP, Boston, Massachusetts and Sarah C. Columbia, McDermott Will & Emergy, LLP, Boston, Massachusetts. Defendant's attorney: Amber T. Aubry, Robert G. Krupka, Alexander F. MacKInnon, Timothy G. Majors, Nick Saros, David Shukan, Christopher C. Smith, Regan A. Smith, Marc H. Cohen, Courtney Holohan, and Allison Worthy Buchner, Kirkland & Ellis, LLP, Los Angeles, California; Nishita A. Doshi, Heller Ehrman, LLP, Menlo Park, California; Daniel K. Hampton and Gael Mahony, Holland & Knight, LLP; and Edward S. Cheng and Anthony L. DeProspo, Jr., Sherin and Lodgen, LLP, Boston, Massachusetts.

When was Akamai Technologies v. Limelight Networks decided?

This case was decided on March 3, 2008.