Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc.
E1201256
UNEXPLORED
Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc. is a 2014 U.S. Supreme Court patent case that clarified the standards for induced infringement in the context of divided online method patents.
All labels observed (1)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc. canonical | 1 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T16205780 — resolving that mention is where its identity was fixed. The disambiguator weighed these candidate entities and picked the highlighted one (or “None”, minting a new entity). This is how homonymy is resolved: the same surface form can point to different entities.
NED1
Entity disambiguation (via context triple)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc. Context triple: [October Term 2013, hasPart, Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc.]
-
A.
United States v. Microsoft Corp.
United States v. Microsoft Corp. was a major U.S. antitrust lawsuit in the late 1990s and early 2000s that challenged Microsoft's dominance in the personal computer operating systems market, particularly its practices related to bundling Internet Explorer with Windows.
-
B.
AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion
AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion is a 2011 U.S. Supreme Court decision holding that the Federal Arbitration Act preempts state laws that deem class-action waivers in arbitration agreements unconscionable, thereby strengthening the enforceability of mandatory individual arbitration clauses.
-
C.
MCI v. AT&T
MCI v. AT&T was a landmark U.S. antitrust lawsuit in the telecommunications industry that challenged AT&T’s monopoly and helped open the long-distance market to competition.
-
D.
Basic Inc. v. Levinson
Basic Inc. v. Levinson is a landmark 1988 U.S. Supreme Court case that established the fraud-on-the-market theory and clarified the materiality standard for misstatements in securities fraud class actions.
-
E.
Stoneridge Investment Partners v. Scientific-Atlanta
Stoneridge Investment Partners v. Scientific-Atlanta is a 2008 U.S. Supreme Court case that limited the scope of private securities fraud lawsuits by holding that secondary actors in a deceptive scheme are not liable under Section 10(b) unless their own conduct is directly relied upon by investors.
- F. None of above. chosen
- G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.
NED2
Entity disambiguation (via description)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc. Target entity description: Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc. is a 2014 U.S. Supreme Court patent case that clarified the standards for induced infringement in the context of divided online method patents.
-
A.
United States v. Microsoft Corp.
United States v. Microsoft Corp. was a major U.S. antitrust lawsuit in the late 1990s and early 2000s that challenged Microsoft's dominance in the personal computer operating systems market, particularly its practices related to bundling Internet Explorer with Windows.
-
B.
AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion
AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion is a 2011 U.S. Supreme Court decision holding that the Federal Arbitration Act preempts state laws that deem class-action waivers in arbitration agreements unconscionable, thereby strengthening the enforceability of mandatory individual arbitration clauses.
-
C.
MCI v. AT&T
MCI v. AT&T was a landmark U.S. antitrust lawsuit in the telecommunications industry that challenged AT&T’s monopoly and helped open the long-distance market to competition.
-
D.
Basic Inc. v. Levinson
Basic Inc. v. Levinson is a landmark 1988 U.S. Supreme Court case that established the fraud-on-the-market theory and clarified the materiality standard for misstatements in securities fraud class actions.
-
E.
Stoneridge Investment Partners v. Scientific-Atlanta
Stoneridge Investment Partners v. Scientific-Atlanta is a 2008 U.S. Supreme Court case that limited the scope of private securities fraud lawsuits by holding that secondary actors in a deceptive scheme are not liable under Section 10(b) unless their own conduct is directly relied upon by investors.
- F. None of above. chosen
Referenced by (1)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.