1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. AKAMAI TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. LIMELIGHT NETWORKS, INC.
 

AKAMAI TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. LIMELIGHT NETWORKS, INC.

Civil Action No. 16-10253-GAO.

AKAMAI TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendant, v. LIMELIGHT NETWORKS, INC., Defendant and Counterclaim Plaintiff.

United States District Court, D. Massachusetts.

June 24, 2016.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Akamai Technologies, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Carlos J. Perez-Albuerne , Choate, Hall & Stewart, G. Mark Edgarton , Choate, Hall & Stewart LLP & Kevin C. Quigley , Choate, Hall & Stewart.

Limelight Networks, Inc., Defendant, represented by Azra M. Hadzimehmedovic , TENSEGRITY LAW GROUP, LLP, pro hac vice, Matthew D. Powers , Tensegrity Law Group, LLP, pro hac vice, Robert L. Gerrity , Tensegrity Law Group, LLP, pro hac vice, William P. Nelson , TENSEGRITY LAW GROUP, LLP, pro hac vice & James L. Messenger , Gordon & Rees, LLP.

Limelight Networks, Inc., Counter Claimant, represented by Azra M. Hadzimehmedovic , TENSEGRITY LAW GROUP, LLP, Matthew D. Powers , Tensegrity Law Group, LLP, Robert L. Gerrity , Tensegrity Law Group, LLP, William P. Nelson , TENSEGRITY LAW GROUP, LLP & James L. Messenger , Gordon & Rees, LLP.

Akamai Technologies, Inc., Counter Defendant, represented by Carlos J. Perez-Albuerne , Choate, Hall & Stewart, G. Mark Edgarton , Choate, Hall & Stewart LLP & Kevin C. Quigley , Choate, Hall & Stewart.

Limelight Networks, Inc., Counter Claimant, represented by Azra M. Hadzimehmedovic , TENSEGRITY LAW GROUP, LLP, Matthew D. Powers , Tensegrity Law Group, LLP, Robert L. Gerrity , Tensegrity Law Group, LLP, William P. Nelson , TENSEGRITY LAW GROUP, LLP & James L. Messenger , Gordon & Rees, LLP.

Akamai Technologies, Inc., Counter Defendant, represented by Carlos J. Perez-Albuerne , Choate, Hall & Stewart, G. Mark Edgarton , Choate, Hall & Stewart LLP & Kevin C. Quigley , Choate, Hall & Stewart.

ORDER

Following the initial scheduling conference, pursuant to Rule 16(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rules 16.1(F) and 16.6(B), the Court adopts the following schedule for both parties' patent infringement claims. In this Order, the word "patentee" refers to the relevant patent...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases