The Supreme Court ruled against Akamai Technologies Monday...

Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which originally ruled on the case in 2012, “fundamentally misunderstands what it means to infringe a method patent,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the Supreme Court’s unanimous opinion (http://1.usa.gov/1hsV8ja). Oral argument was held in April (CD May 1 p16). The Federal Circuit had ruled Akamai and patent co-owner Massachusetts Institute of Technology could argue Limelight had committed “divided” or “inducing infringement” of its patents on content delivery methods by committing most steps in the infringement process and then inducing a third party -- its customers -- to take the final step in that process. The Federal Circuit’s “contrary view” would deprive U.S. law “of ascertainable standards and require the courts to develop two parallel bodies of infringement law,” the Supreme Court said. Limelight believes the Supreme Court’s ruling is a win for the entire country “by promoting clear rules governing liability for patent infringement,” a spokeswoman said. “We look forward to full resolution” of the case, she added. Akamai had no immediate comment. Supreme Court justices had spent much of oral argument debating whether a ruling on Akamai’s claim of “divided” or “inducing infringement” would have any lasting value since Akamai had the option to argue its case again before the Federal Circuit because that court hadn’t ruled on claims of direct infringement. The Supreme Court remanded the case back to the Federal Circuit, directing it to decide the direct infringement issue. Cisco, Facebook and Google were among the major tech companies backing Limelight’s case, arguing an Akamai win would open them up to more suits from patent assertion entities.