Triple

Given a phrase, classify it is english named entity (e.g., persons, organizations, works of art) in Latin script, or not (e.g., literals, dates, URLs, verbose phrases). For disambiguation, the statement where the phrase occurs as object is also given. Please return a JSON object with `phrase` (string, the phrase being analyzed) and `is_ne` (boolean, indicating whether the phrase is a Named Entity).

Phrase: Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc. | Statement: [October Term 2013, hasPart, Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc.]

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.

Generate a one-sentence description of the target entity. 
You are given a context triple in the form (subject, predicate, object), where the object is the target entity. 
# Instructions
Use the triple to infer relevant information about the entity. Describe the entity based on what is most defining, well-known. 
Avoid repeating the information from the triple, unless really essential.
# Response Format
Return only the sentence: "Description: [one-sentence description of the target entity]"

Entity: Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc.
Triple: [October Term 2013, hasPart, Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc.]

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.

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