Patent opinions from the Eastern District of Texas and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Weekly Digest
Fed. Cir.

Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., No. 09-1417 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 20, 2010)

See Opinion Disposition stated in the opinion
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 09-1417
Decided
December 20, 2010
Judge
Document
Order (scanned)
Length
1 page
Figure on page 1 of the opinion

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

NOTICE OF ENTRY OF

JUDGMENT ACCOMPANIED BY OPINION

OPINION FILED AND JUDGMENT ENTERED: 12/20/10

The attached opinion announcing the judgment of the court in your case was filed and judgment was entered on the date indicated above. The mandate will be issued in due course.

Information is also provided about petitions for rehearing and petitions for rehearing en banc. The questions and answers are those frequently asked and answered by the Clerk's Office.

Costs are taxed against the Appellant(s) under Rule 39. The party entitled to costs is provided a bill of costs form and an instruction sheet with this notice.

The parties are encouraged to stipulate to the costs. A bill of costs will be presumed correct in the absence of a timely filed objection.

Costs are payable to the party awarded costs. If costs are awarded to the government, they should be paid to the Treasurer of the United States. Where costs are awarded against the government, payment should be made to the person(s) designated under the governing statutes, the court's orders, and the parties' written settlement agreements. In cases between private parties, payment should be made to counsel for the party awarded costs or, if the party is not represented by counsel, to the party pro se. Payment of costs should not be sent to the court. Costs should be paid promptly.

If the court also imposed monetary sanctions, they are payable to the opposing party unless the court's opinion provides otherwise. Sanctions should be paid in the same way as costs.

Regarding exhibits and visual aids: Your attention is directed to FRAP 34(g) which states that the clerk may destroy or dispose of the exhibits if counsel does not reclaim them within a reasonable time after the clerk gives notice to remove them. (The clerk deems a reasonable time to be 15 days from the date the final mandate Is issued.

JAN HORBALY

Clerk

CC: Robert S. Frank, Jr., Donald R. Dunner

Robert G. Krupka

AKAMAI TECH V LIMELIGHT NETWORKS, 2009-1372

DCT - MA, 06-CV-11585

Text extracted from the official PDF and reflowed for reading. It is not a certified transcript — the PDF linked above is the authoritative document.

Analysis is coming soon.

A plain-English account of the issues, facts and holding, written by Patent Case Watch. The opinion itself — its full text, its PDF and everything else on this page — stays free to read for everyone, always.

Cite this opinion

Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., No. 09-1417 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 20, 2010).

govinfo ID
USCOURTS-ca13-09-01417-0
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-ca13-09-01417-0

No reporter citation is shown because the official source does not supply one; none is inferred here. Check the opinion and a citator before relying on this form.