Case 3:15-cv-00720-JAG Document 28 Filed 02/16/16 Page 1 of 57 PageID# 379
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
`Alexandria Division
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 3:15cv720-JAG
`
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`LIMELIGHT NETWORKS, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`XO COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, AND
`AKAMAI TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`LIMELIGHT’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1), Limelight Networks, Inc.
`
`(“Limelight” or “Plaintiff”) hereby alleges for its First Amended Complaint for patent
`
`infringement against Defendants XO Communications, LLC (“XO”) and Akamai Technologies,
`
`Inc. (“Akamai”) (collectively, “Defendants”) on personal knowledge as to its own actions and on
`
`information and belief as to the actions of others, as follows:
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`
`1.
`
`This is a patent infringement action by Limelight to end Defendants’ unauthorized
`
`and infringing manufacture, use, sale, offering for sale, and/or importation of products and
`
`methods incorporating Limelight’s patented inventions.
`
`2.
`
`Limelight holds all substantial rights and interest in the Patents-in-Suit described
`
`below, including the exclusive right to sue Defendants for infringement and recover damages.
`
`3.
`
`Plaintiff Limelight seeks monetary damages, prejudgment interest and injunctive
`
`relief for Akamai’s and XO’s past and on-going infringement of the Patents-in-Suit.
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`1
`
`AKAMAI
`EXHIBIT 1009
`
`

`

`Case 3:15-cv-00720-JAG Document 28 Filed 02/16/16 Page 2 of 57 PageID# 380
`
`4.
`
`Limelight Networks, Inc. (“Limelight”) is a corporation organized and existing
`
`under the laws of Delaware with its principal place of business at 222 South Mill Ave., Suite 800,
`
`Tempe, Arizona 85281.
`
`5.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant XO Communications, LLC. (“XO”) is a
`
`corporation existing and organized under the laws of Delaware and has its principal place of
`
`business at 13865 Sunrise Valley Drive, Herndon, VA 20171.
`
`6.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant Akamai Technologies, Inc. (“Akamai,” or
`
`“Defendant”) is a corporation existing and organized under the laws of Delaware and has its
`
`principal place of business at 150 Broadway, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02142.
`
`7.
`
`Founded in 2001, Limelight is a leader in digital content delivery. Its content
`
`acceleration technologies and services enable publishers to deliver their digital content (e.g., web
`
`pages, videos, full-length movies and television shows, operating system updates, and online
`
`games) on any device, anywhere in the world.
`
`8.
`
`Akamai also sells products and services for digital content delivery. As such,
`
`numerous Limelight products and services compete with those offered by Akamai. For example,
`
`Limelight and Akamai each operate a global Content Delivery Network (“CDN”)—a
`
`geographically distributed network of servers that their customers, such as web sites, software
`
`applications, video-on-demand and streaming media providers, can use to accelerate content
`
`delivery to their end users. Such CDNs accelerate content delivery through a variety of
`
`techniques, such as caching content at numerous servers so that the content can be delivered to
`
`end users from locations close to the user. XO is a telecommunications company that is engaged
`
`in an extensive partnership with Akamai, including as a reseller of Akamai services and as
`
`a partner in deployment and operation of hardware and software components of a CDN.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 3:15-cv-00720-JAG Document 28 Filed 02/16/16 Page 3 of 57 PageID# 381
`
`9.
`
`While Akamai was one of the first to market with a CDN solution, newer entrants
`
`such as Limelight have rapidly innovated and developed new technology contributions—and
`
`obtained patent protection for those contributions—which Akamai has then implemented in
`
`order to remain competitive.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`10.
`
`This action for patent infringement arises under the patent laws of the United
`
`States, Title 35 of the United States Code.
`
`11.
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and
`
`1338(a).
`
`12.
`
`This Court has general and specific personal jurisdiction over Defendant XO. XO
`
`has substantial contacts with the forum as a consequence of establishing its headquarters in
`
`Virginia and in this District, and XO conducts substantial business in Virginia. XO sells, makes,
`
`uses, and offers for sale its products and services, including products and services that infringe
`
`Plaintiff’s patents, within the state of Virginia, including to customers in Virginia. Such
`
`customers include USA Today, a customer it shares with Akamai in connection with use of
`
`systems that infringe the asserted patents. In addition, on information and belief, XO has
`
`established data centers for use in infringing the asserted Limelight Patents in this district,
`
`including at 12100 Sunrise Valley Drive Reston, VA, and at 8613 Lee Highway, Fairfax, VA
`
`22031.
`
`13.
`
`XO has committed and continues to commit acts of patent infringement, including
`
`making and using infringing systems, and performing infringing methods, within this district,
`
`including in conjunction with Akamai.
`
`14.
`
`This Court has general and specific personal jurisdiction over Defendant Akamai.
`
`Akamai has substantial contacts with the forum as a consequence of conducting substantial
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 3:15-cv-00720-JAG Document 28 Filed 02/16/16 Page 4 of 57 PageID# 382
`
`business in Virginia and in this District, including establishment of offices at 11111 Sunset Hills
`
`Road, Suite 250, Reston, VA 20190. In addition, Akamai has established a significant presence
`
`in this forum by locating its content delivery servers accused of infringing the patents asserted in
`
`this action in Virginia and in this District. For example, according to publicly available
`
`documentation, Akamai has placed more than 200 racks of its accused content delivery servers
`
`and associated hardware and software at a data center located at 12100 Sunrise Valley Drive
`
`Reston, VA 20191, and has placed an additional 170 racks of its accused content delivery servers
`
`and associated hardware and software at a data center located at 1780 Business Center Drive,
`
`Reston, VA 20190. Akamai has also located its accused content delivery servers in data centers
`
`in Sterling, VA, Manassas, VA, Ashburn, VA, and Vienna, VA, each of which are located in this
`
`District. The operation of these content delivery servers in Virginia and in this District
`
`constitutes infringement of the asserted Limelight patents in this District. In addition, this Court
`
`has jurisdiction over Akamai because Akamai has conducted business with a Virginia-based
`
`corporation, XO, for the purpose of infringing the patents.
`
`15.
`
`Akamai has committed and continues to commit acts of patent infringement,
`
`including making and using infringing systems, and performing infringing methods, within this
`
`district, including in conjunction with XO.
`
`16.
`
`Venue is proper for XO in this District under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and (c), and
`
`1400(b) because, as described above, a substantial part of the events giving rise to Limelight’s
`
`claims occurred in this district, and because XO, which is headquartered in Herndon, Virginia,
`
`resides within this district.
`
`17.
`
`Venue is proper for Akamai in this District under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and (c),
`
`and 1400(b) because, as described above, Akamai has a regular and established practice of
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 3:15-cv-00720-JAG Document 28 Filed 02/16/16 Page 5 of 57 PageID# 383
`
`business in this district and has committed acts of infringement in this district, including by
`
`virtue of its far-reaching relationship with XO, whose headquarters are in this district. In 2001,
`
`Akamai and XO entered into a strategic agreement under which “XO will provide co-location
`
`space in its data centers for the deployment of additional Akamai servers,” and “XO’s
`
`interconnection bandwidth related services and hosting capabilities [will] help Akamai to expand
`
`its reach to enable users to benefit from improved performance and accelerated delivery of the
`
`Web’s most popular streaming media, software applications and content served on Akamai’s
`
`globally distributed network”—in short, to co-locate at XO-owned or XO-administered data
`
`centers the products and services accused of infringing the Limelight patents asserted in this
`
`action. “XO Communications and Akamai Announce Strategic Alliance,” dated May 17, 2001, at
`
`http://www.akamai.eu/html/about/press/releases/2001/press_051701.html (last visited November
`
`29, 2015). On information and belief, one such data center is located at 12100 Sunrise Valley
`
`Drive, Reston, VA. XO also resells Akamai’s accused content delivery services to its customers.
`
`18.
`
`XO has also entered into agreements with Akamai to provide, among other things,
`
`network connectivity and “peering and transit services” to Akamai servers that form part of
`
`Akamai’s Content Delivery Network.
`
`JOINDER
`
`19.
`
`Joinder is proper under 35 U.S.C. § 299 because questions of fact common to
`
`each Defendant will arise in the action. As detailed below, Limelight alleges patent infringement
`
`by Defendants in connection with their making and using systems, and their practice of methods,
`
`for accelerating the delivery of digital content based on hardware and software developed by
`
`Defendant Akamai. As such, factual issues regarding the operation of that hardware and software
`
`are common to Akamai and to XO.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 3:15-cv-00720-JAG Document 28 Filed 02/16/16 Page 6 of 57 PageID# 384
`
`20.
`
`Joinder is further proper because some of Defendants’ infringement arises out of
`
`the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences relating to the making,
`
`using, importing into the United States, offering for sale, or selling of the same accused product
`
`or process. As described below, while each of XO and Akamai can directly infringe the asserted
`
`claims, when the infringing system includes a combination of XO-deployed components and
`
`Akamai servers, Akamai and XO act jointly or in concert to perform the infringing acts, and in
`
`that instance, the infringement is not complete until both XO and Akamai have provided or
`
`performed their respective parts. For example, the asserted patents include claim elements that
`
`are only satisfied when the components of a CDN server are connected to, and made addressable
`
`on, a network such as the Internet, which is one component supplied to Akamai by XO.
`
`THE ASSERTED PATENTS
`
`21.
`
`As a global leader in digital content delivery, Limelight has sought patent
`
`protection for many of its innovations in this field, including the patents asserted in this matter.
`
`THE CONDITIONAL PROTOCOL CONTROL PATENTS
`
`22.
`
`On May 11, 2010, the United States Patent and Trademark Office duly and legally
`
`issued U.S. Patent No. 7,715,324 (“the 324 Patent”), entitled “Conditional Protocol Control.” A
`
`copy of the 324 Patent is attached to the Complaint as Exhibit A.
`
`23.
`
`On December 10, 2014, the United States Patent and Trademark Office duly and
`
`legally issued U.S. Patent No. 8,750,155 (“the 155 Patent”), entitled “Conditional Protocol
`
`Control.” A copy of the 155 Patent is attached to the Complaint as Exhibit B.
`
`24.
`
`The 324 and 155 Patents arose out of the innovative work performed by Limelight
`
`engineers to utilize selective optimizations of the Transport Control Protocol (“TCP”), a core
`
`Internet protocol that governs how content is delivered over the web, in order to accelerate their
`
`customers’ delivery of Internet content, including web pages, downloadable files, and media
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 3:15-cv-00720-JAG Document 28 Filed 02/16/16 Page 7 of 57 PageID# 385
`
`content such as images or audio/video, to their end users. The inventors of the 324 and 155
`
`Patents developed ways to use TCP optimizations to accelerate such content conditionally, such
`
`as on a customer-by-customer, or file-by-file basis, in order to optimize this content delivery for
`
`any given set of circumstances.
`
`25.
`
`In October 2008, Limelight licensed the basic technology and software for
`
`optimizing TCP connections from FastSoft, Inc., a startup company that developed an algorithm
`
`known as FastTCP, which allowed for accelerating TCP connections on one end (the server end)
`
`of an Internet connection. FastSoft had no experience in content acceleration in the context of
`
`CDNs such as those provided by Limelight and by Akamai, and instead pursued a business
`
`model whereby it sought to sell hardware appliances that implemented its algorithm. On top of
`
`the elementary technology supplied by FastSoft, Limelight engineers developed a complete TCP
`
`optimization solution for CDNs that could analyze a request for content received by a content
`
`server and, based on information obtained from the request, such as the identity of the customer
`
`or the type of content requested, conditionally apply a set of transport protocol optimizations on
`
`a connection by connection basis. Because optimization could be applied conditionally on a
`
`connection-by-connection basis under the Limelight solution, each connection could be
`
`optimized differently, according to a configurable profile.
`
`26.
`
`Limelight sought and obtained patent protection for its conditional protocol
`
`control innovations, including the 324 and 155 Patents.
`
`27.
`
`Limelight also shared its conditional protocol control innovations with FastSoft,
`
`including providing FastSoft with the functional requirements for its Deliver XD service that
`
`implemented these innovations, and collaborating with FastSoft on the improvement of its
`
`technology for use within a Content Delivery Network.
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 3:15-cv-00720-JAG Document 28 Filed 02/16/16 Page 8 of 57 PageID# 386
`
`28.
`
`In September 2012, Akamai announced that it had acquired FastSoft, and had
`
`integrated FastSoft’s engineering team—a team that had been exposed to Limelight’s
`
`innovations—into Akamai. Shortly thereafter, Akamai communicated to Limelight that all
`
`FastSoft products were entering their End Of Life (“EOL”) phase, and support for these products
`
`would be discontinued within one year, or earlier if allowed under the license agreement.
`
`29.
`
`At least by September 2013, Akamai had deployed FastSoft-based TCP protocol
`
`optimization in its own Content Delivery Network in a manner strikingly similar to the
`
`implementation created and patented by Limelight. Like Limelight, Akamai’s TCP optimization
`
`does not utilize FastSoft hardware appliances, but instead deploys TCP optimizations in software
`
`at content servers in the Content Delivery Network. Like Limelight, Akamai’s TCP optimization
`
`is conditional, highly configurable via a configuration profile, and can be set connection-by-
`
`connection. Like Limelight, Akamai’s TCP optimization parameters are based on analysis of the
`
`received content request. Each of these aspects is described in Limelight’s conditional protocol
`
`control patents prior to Akamai’s deployment.
`
`OTHER LIMELIGHT PATENTS
`
`30.
`
`On October 7, 2014, the United States Patent and Trademark Office duly and
`
`legally issued U.S. Patent No. 8,856,263 (“the 263 Patent”), entitled “Systems and methods
`
`thereto for acceleration of web pages access using next page optimization, caching and pre-
`
`fetching techniques.” A copy of the 263 Patent is attached to the Complaint as Exhibit C.
`
`31.
`
`On March 25, 2014, the United States Patent and Trademark Office duly and
`
`legally issued U.S. Patent No. 8,683,002 (“the 002 Patent”), entitled “Content delivery network
`
`cache grouping.” A copy of the 002 Patent is attached to the Complaint as Exhibit D.
`
`32.
`
`On April 21, 2015, the United States Patent and Trademark Office duly and
`
`legally issued U.S. Patent No. 9,015,348 (“the 348 Patent”), entitled “Dynamically selecting
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 3:15-cv-00720-JAG Document 28 Filed 02/16/16 Page 9 of 57 PageID# 387
`
`between acceleration techniques based on content request attributes.” A copy of the 348 Patent is
`
`attached to the Complaint as Exhibit E.
`
`33.
`
`On December 24, 2013, the United States Patent and Trademark Office duly and
`
`legally issued U.S. Patent No. 8,615,577 (“the 577 Patent”), entitled “Policy based processing of
`
`content objects in a content delivery network using mutators.” A copy of the 577 Patent is
`
`attached to the Complaint as Exhibit F.
`
`34.
`
`Limelight owns all substantial right, title, and interest in the 324, 155, 002, 263,
`
`348, and 577 Patents, and holds the right to sue and recover damages for infringement thereof,
`
`including past infringement.
`
`35.
`
`Akamai was served with Limelight’s original Complaint, attached as Exhibit G,
`
`on December 2, 2015. A copy of the executed summons and proofs of service for Akamai is
`
`attached as Exhibit H.
`
`36.
`
`At least by no later than the date of service of Limelight’s original Complaint,
`
`Akamai had actual notice of each of the Asserted Patents and actual notice that its individual
`
`actions and/or the joint or concerted actions of Akamai and XO constituted and continue to
`
`constitute infringement of at least one claim of each of the Asserted Patents.
`
`37.
`
`XO was served with Limelight’s original Complaint, attached as Exhibit G, on
`
`December 2, 2015. A copy of the executed summons and proofs of service for XO is attached as
`
`Exhibit I.
`
`38.
`
`At least by no later than the date of service of Limelight’s original Complaint, XO
`
`had actual notice of each of the Asserted Patents and actual notice that its individual actions
`
`and/or the joint or concerted actions of Akamai and XO constituted and continue to constitute
`
`infringement of at least one claim of each of the Asserted Patents.
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 3:15-cv-00720-JAG Document 28 Filed 02/16/16 Page 10 of 57 PageID# 388
`
`COUNT I AGAINST AKAMAI:
`
`INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,750,155
`
`39.
`
`Limelight incorporates and realleges paragraphs 1-38 above as if fully set forth
`
`herein.
`
`40.
`
`On information and belief, Akamai has infringed and continues to infringe one or
`
`more claims of the 155 Patent, including but not limited to claims 1, 3, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15,
`
`18, 19, and 20, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, by
`
`making, using, selling, and/or offering to sell in the United States without authority and/or
`
`importing into the United States without authority, the Akamai Intelligent Platform, including a
`
`content delivery network with edge servers running Akamai’s TCP optimization functionality, as
`
`well as services associated therewith (the 155 Infringing Products). Based on information and
`
`belief, and publicly available documentation, the 155 Infringing Products perform TCP
`
`optimization by modifying pre-existing TCP settings based upon parameters that are determined
`
`at least in part with reference to information in the URLs of end-user requests processed by
`
`Akamai.
`
`41.
`
`Further, when Akamai’s edge servers are combined with network services
`
`supplied in part or in whole by XO (or another Network Service Provider) in a manner that
`
`satisfies the claims, such joint conduct constitutes direct infringement, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §
`
`271(a), of the asserted claims.
`
`42.
`
`Akamai’s edge servers with TCP optimization meet the requirements of the
`
`claimed content distribution server, as reflected by publicly available Akamai documentation. On
`
`information and belief, to perform their basic role, Akamai’s edge servers, including edge servers
`
`that are co-located with XO, have multiple network ports to send and receive data. For example,
`
`Akamai publishes the following images showing Akamai servers having two Ethernet ports:
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 3:15-cv-00720-JAG Document 28 Filed 02/16/16 Page 11 of 57 PageID# 389
`
`Akamai Hands And Eyes Guide, available at https://fieldtech.akamai.com/heguide/images/Serve
`
`r_Hardware/X4i_1-5x18_10G_Rear_Large.jpg (last visited November 29, 2015).
`
`Akamai Hands And Eyes Guide, available at https://fieldtech.akamai.com/heguide/images/Serve
`
`
`
`r_Hardware/X1_2x8_CacheH_Rear_Large.jpg (last visited November 29, 2015). Further
`
`information
`
`about Akamai’s
`
`deployed
`
`network
`
`interfaces
`
`can
`
`be
`
`found
`
`in
`
`Akamai Hands And Eyes Guide, available at https://fieldtech.akamai.com/heguide/Network_Pac
`
`kages.html (last visited November 29, 2015).
`
`43.
`
`Further, Akamai’s geographically distributed deployments of its edge servers, as
`
`deployed and operated for example by XO in its data centers, include routers that “allow Akamai
`
`to direct traffic between Akamai's equipment and the providers that Akamai connects to.”
`
`[Akamai
`
`Hands
`
`and
`
`Eyes
`
`Guide],
`
`available
`
`at
`
`https://fieldtech.akamai.com/heguide/Router_Hardware.html. When such equipment is deployed
`
`in a manner that connects Akamai’s edge servers to the Internet, for example by XO in its data
`
`centers, it likewise has multiple ports configured to send and receive data over a connecting
`
`network.
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 3:15-cv-00720-JAG Document 28 Filed 02/16/16 Page 12 of 57 PageID# 390
`
`44.
`
`Likewise, Akamai’s servers, including on information and belief servers that are
`
`co-located with XO, include processors:
`
`Akamai Hands And Eyes Guide, available at https://fieldtech.akamai.com/heguide/Server_Hard
`
`
`
`ware.html (last visited November 29, 2015). The 155 Infringing Products include a protocol
`
`handler, such as the TCP/IP protocol stack implementation, that establishes and maintains
`
`connections with end-users. The 155 Infringing Products have storage that they use to store
`
`customer content to serve to end-users.
`
`45.
`
`The 155 Infringing Products perform TCP optimization in a manner that infringes
`
`the asserted claims. Specifically, the 155 Infringing Products monitor connections with end-users
`
`for requests. When they receive end-user requests, the 155 Infringing Products determine
`
`parameters that relate to processing and memory capabilities in the TCP protocol, such as
`
`maximum buffer space and socket buffer values. These determinations are made by the edge
`
`server, including on information and belief in those cases where the edge server is co-located
`
`with XO, based at least in part on reference to information in the URL of the request (such as for
`
`example, the hostname field or the customer ID). This information is utilized, in addition to other
`
`information, for the Akamai server to determine how aggressive the TCP optimization should be
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 3:15-cv-00720-JAG Document 28 Filed 02/16/16 Page 13 of 57 PageID# 391
`
`for that connection. Once that determination is made, the TCP settings are altered to put that new
`
`optimization into effect by changing pre-existing TCP values to new values that are consistent
`
`with the correct level of TCP optimization. As Akamai’s documentation explains in detail:
`
`At a high-level, it operates in two modes: slow-start and congestion-avoidance.
`Those are different phases in the protocol that attempt to probe the network for
`available bandwidth using slightly different approaches. TCP maintains what’s
`referred to as a congestion window, which determines how many packets can be
`in-flight on the network at any point in time. The higher the congestion window,
`the greater TCP believes its fair share of the available bandwidth is. In slow-start,
`for every packet that is correctly received (i.e., acknowledged), the congestion
`window is expanded by a factor of 2; which is an aggressive rate of increase
`despite the “slow-start” misnomer. In congestion-avoidance, TCP believes it is
`much closer to its fair share and probes the network much less aggressively.
`Instead of expanding the congestion window by a factor of 2, the congestion
`window is only expanded by a single packet after an entire congestion window
`worth of packets is acknowledged by the receiver. In both cases, once loss is
`detected, the congestion window is shrunk and the probing starts again.
`
`Akamai optimizes TCP by tuning knobs that control where we start probing from
`(i.e., the initial congestion window), how quickly we expand the congestion
`window in both the slow-start (factor of 2 or 3 or higher) and congestion-
`avoidance (increase by 1 or 2 or higher) phases, as well as how much we back off
`when a loss is detected (shrink window by 50%, 30% or even less). That allows
`us to control how aggressive the protocol is in acquiring bandwidth. A TCP
`instance that probes aggressively and does not back off as much will acquire a
`larger share of the available bandwidth, under most network conditions.
`
`TCP Optimizations, available at https://developer.akamai.com/stuff/Optimization/TCP_Optimiz
`
`ations.html (last visited November 29, 2015).
`
`46.
`
`Akamai’s TCP optimization has at least medium and low settings, which
`
`determine how aggressively TCP is optimized for the connection. Further, the selection of a level
`
`of TCP optimization results in the timing of data transmission at the transport layer being
`
`modified as a function of the rate at which the congestion window is changed. On information
`
`and belief, Akamai’s TCP optimization also results in changing the burst size of the connection.
`
`47.
`
`Further, Akamai utilizes latency estimates to select the correct level of TCP
`
`optimization. As Akamai explains: “It’s a reactive protocol. FastTCP, the Akamaized version of
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 3:15-cv-00720-JAG Document 28 Filed 02/16/16 Page 14 of 57 PageID# 392
`
`FastSoft’s solution, attempts to estimate the correct transmission rate by utilizing latency
`
`estimates, among other things, without actually inducing loss. It’s a proactive protocol.”
`
`TCP Optimizations, available at https://developer.akamai.com/stuff/Optimization/TCP_Optimiz
`
`ations.html (last visited November 29, 2015).
`
`48.
`
`Further, on
`
`information and belief, Akamai makes TCP optimization
`
`determinations based on a predetermined performance profile, for instance, based on the identity
`
`of the customer or the specific customer content provided by Akamai. On information and belief,
`
`this performance profile is stored on at least a customer-by-customer basis and is used to set the
`
`level of TCP optimization (such as medium and low).
`
`49.
`
`Further, when an Akamai edge server with TCP optimization does not have
`
`content requested by an end-user in its own cache, the edge server can obtain that content from
`
`the cache or caches of neighboring or “parent” Akamai edge servers, provide that content to the
`
`end-user, and also store that same content in its own cache for future use. When an Akamai edge
`
`server obtains the missing content from the cache of an edge server hosted by XO, or vice versa,
`
`Akamai and XO act in concert or jointly to practice the claimed inventions and the infringement
`
`is not complete until both Akamai and XO have provided or performed their respective parts.
`
`50.
`
`On information and belief, Akamai’s TCP optimization, which infringes the
`
`asserted claims, utilizes technology that Akamai received from Limelight by way of its
`
`acquisition of FastSoft, as discussed above at ¶¶ 24-28. As Akamai explains in its public
`
`documentation:
`
`There has been a lot of research on TCP over the last 10–15 years, much of which
`has focused on improving some aspect of TCP’s behavior. The key finding is that
`TCP does not work well under all types of network characteristics, including
`loss/latency patterns, cross-traffic, how quickly the available bandwidth changes
`over time, and so on. In 2012 Akamai acquired FastSoft, a company that
`developed a novel transport solution that does not rely on detecting loss to adapt
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 3:15-cv-00720-JAG Document 28 Filed 02/16/16 Page 15 of 57 PageID# 393
`
`the congestion window. In general, TCP induces loss, by constantly probing for
`more available bandwidth, in order to estimate the correct transmission rate. It
`then reacts to the occurrence of loss. It’s a reactive protocol. FastTCP, the
`Akamaized version of FastSoft’s solution, attempts to estimate the correct
`transmission rate by utilizing latency estimates, among other things, without
`actually inducing loss. It’s a proactive protocol.
`
`TCP Optimizations, available at https://developer.akamai.com/stuff/Optimization/TCP_Optimiz
`
`ations.html.
`
`51.
`
`The making, and operation, of the 155 Infringing Products as described above
`
`constitutes infringement of at least the above-mentioned claims of the 155 Patent pursuant to 35
`
`U.S.C. § 271(a).
`
`52.
`
`On information and belief, Akamai has induced and continues to induce
`
`infringement of the 155 Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) by encouraging its customers,
`
`their end users, and other third parties including XO, to perform the claimed methods for
`
`managing delivery of content in a system, or make and/or use the claimed systems, as described
`
`above. Such performance of the claimed methods, or making and/or use of the claimed systems,
`
`constitutes infringement, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, of one or more claims of
`
`the 155 Patent by such third parties. Akamai’s acts of encouragement include: providing and
`
`intending that third parties use products and services that utilize the Akamai Intelligent Platform
`
`with Akamai’s TCP optimization functionality; purposefully and voluntarily placing the 155
`
`infringing products and services in the stream of commerce with the expectation that these
`
`products and services will be used by customers in the Eastern District of Virginia; providing
`
`other components of the system that enable and/or make use of these products and services,
`
`including, e.g., servers and other network equipment; advertising these products and services
`
`through its own and third-party websites; providing instructions on how to use these products
`
`and services; and encouraging Network Service Providers such as XO to provide it with network
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 3:15-cv-00720-JAG Document 28 Filed 02/16/16 Page 16 of 57 PageID# 394
`
`connectivity services to practice the asserted claims. Furthermore, Akamai has actual knowledge
`
`of how its accused products and services work, including how its accused products and services
`
`are used by its customers.
`
`53.
`
`Akamai has proceeded in this manner despite its actual knowledge of the 155
`
`Patent and that the specific actions it is actively inducing on the part of its customers and other
`
`third parties constitute infringement of the 155 Patent. At the very least, because Akamai has
`
`been and remains on notice of the 155 Patent and the accused infringement, it has been and
`
`remains willfully blind regarding the infringement it has induced and continues to induce.
`
`54.
`
`55.
`
`Unless enjoined by this Court, Akamai will continue to infringe the 155 Patent.
`
`
`
`As a result of Akamai’s conduct, Limelight has suffered and will continue to
`
`suffer irreparable injury, for which it has no adequate remedy at law. Limelight has also suffered
`
`damages as a result of Akamai’s infringement of the 155 Patent and will continue to suffer such
`
`damages, until an injunction issues, in an amount and manner yet to be determined.
`
`COUNT II AGAINST AKAMAI:
`
`INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,715,324
`
`56.
`
`Limelight incorporates and realleges paragraphs 1-38 above as if fully set forth
`
`herein.
`
`57.
`
`On information and belief, Akamai has infringed and continues to infringe one or
`
`more claims of the 324 Patent, including but not limited to claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, and 11,
`
`pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, by making, using,
`
`selling, and/or offering to sell in the United States without authority and/or importing into the
`
`United States without authority, the Akamai Intelligent Platform, including a content delivery
`
`network with edge servers running Akamai’s TCP optimization functionality, as well as services
`
`associated therewith (the 324 Infringing Products). Based on information and belief, and publicly
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 3:15-cv-00720-JAG Document 28 Filed 02/16/16 Page 17 of 57 PageID# 395
`
`available documentation, the 324 Infringing Products perform TCP optimization by modifying
`
`pre-existing TCP settings based upon parameters that are determined at least in part with
`
`reference to information in the URLs of end-user requests processed by Akamai.
`
`58.
`
`Further, when Akamai’s edge servers are combined with network services
`
`supplied