DCT
1:00-cv-11851
Akamai Tech v. Digital Island Inc
Key Events
Amended Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Akamai Technologies, Inc. and Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MA)
- Defendant: Digital Island, Inc. (CA)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Banner & Witcoff, LTD.
- Case Identification: 1:00-cv-11851, D. Mass., 10/05/2000
- Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on the defendant having committed acts of patent infringement within the District of Massachusetts.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that Defendant’s "Footprint" content delivery service infringes two patents related to methods for optimizing the delivery of web content over a distributed computer network.
- Technical Context: The patents relate to Content Delivery Network (CDN) technology, which improves website performance by distributing content on servers geographically or electronically closer to end-users, a foundational technology for the commercial internet.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that after Plaintiff Akamai introduced its "FreeFlow" CDN service, Defendant Digital Island modified its competing "Footprint" service, which is the version accused of infringement. The complaint also includes a request for a declaratory judgment that Akamai does not infringe a third patent owned by Digital Island, indicating a broader competitive dispute between the parties.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1995-06-07 | ’030 Patent Priority Date |
| 1998-07-14 | ’703 Patent Priority Date |
| c. 1999-04 | Akamai launches "FreeFlow" service |
| After 1999-04 | Digital Island modifies "Footprint" service |
| 1999-12-14 | ’030 Patent Issue Date |
| 2000-08-22 | ’703 Patent Issue Date |
| 2000-10-05 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 6,108,703 - "Global Hosting System" (Issued Aug. 22, 2000)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes the economic and operational inefficiencies of conventional website "mirroring," where entire websites are duplicated at different locations. It also highlights the problem of content providers losing control over hit counts, content tailoring, and information currency when third-party caches are used ( ’703 Patent, col. 1:41-54, col. 2:4-15).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a distributed hosting framework where a web page is split into two parts for delivery. The base HTML document is served from the original content provider's server, preserving their control. However, "embedded objects" within that page (e.g., images, videos) are served from a network of distributed "ghost servers," preferably those located electronically near the end-user. This is accomplished by modifying the Uniform Resource Locators (URLs) of the embedded objects to point to the distributed server network (’703 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:4-16).
- Technical Importance: This method provided a potential solution to the web's scalability challenges by distributing delivery load, while addressing a key business concern for content providers: maintaining control over content presentation and user analytics (’703 Patent, col. 3:1-3).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims" without specifying which ones (Compl. ¶10). Independent claims of potential relevance include:
- Independent Claim 1 (System): A distributed hosting framework comprising:
- A routine for modifying an embedded object URL to include a prepended hostname.
- A set of content servers, distinct from the content provider, for hosting the embedded objects.
- A first-level and second-level Domain Name Service (DNS) server system for resolving requests.
- Wherein the base page is served from the content provider and the embedded object is served from the distinct content servers.
- Independent Claim 14 (Method): A method of serving a page comprising:
- Rewriting the URL of an embedded object to include a new hostname.
- Serving the page with the modified URL.
- Attempting to serve the embedded object from a content server identified by the new hostname.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
U.S. Patent No. 6,003,030 - "System and Method for Optimized Storage and Retrieval of Data on a Distributed Computer Network" (Issued Dec. 14, 1999)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent identifies that transmitting large, time-sensitive data files like audio and video over the internet leads to a "downward spiral" of network performance due to congestion and packet loss. It posits that traditional mirroring is an inadequate solution because server placement is not based on dynamic network performance data (’030 Patent, col. 2:40-62, col. 4:38-44).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes an "intelligent mirroring scheme" where a "configuration utility" residing on the user's terminal performs a series of network tests (e.g., ping, throughput analysis) against a list of available "delivery sites." Based on the results of these tests, the system determines and selects an optimal delivery site for that specific user to retrieve content from, rather than relying on static, pre-configured server assignments (’030 Patent, Abstract; col. 5:40-68).
- Technical Importance: This approach introduced a dynamic, data-driven method for server selection in a CDN, shifting the basis for optimization from geographic proximity to real-time, user-specific network performance metrics (’030 Patent, col. 5:11-28).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims" without specifying which ones (Compl. ¶23). Independent claims of potential relevance include:
- Independent Claim 1 (System): A system for selecting a delivery site, comprising:
- A distributed network with content providers and a plurality of delivery sites storing copies of a file.
- A user terminal.
- A "network traffic testing apparatus" for selecting a preferred delivery site from all available sites.
- A "downloading apparatus" for retrieving the file from the selected preferred site.
- Independent Claim 35 (Method): A method for determining a set of preferred delivery sites, comprising the steps of:
- Obtaining a list of delivery sites.
- Performing at least one network traffic test to determine file delivery performance.
- Processing the results from the test.
- Prioritizing the delivery sites according to the test results.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
- Product Identification: Defendant's "Footprint" content delivery service (Compl. ¶10, ¶23).
- Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges that "Footprint" is a service that "accelerates and improves internet website performance" (Compl. ¶9). The infringement allegations are directed at a "new version" of the service, which was allegedly modified after Plaintiff Akamai launched its own competing "FreeFlow" service (Compl. ¶10). The complaint does not provide specific technical details about how the "Footprint" service operates. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint alleges direct infringement but does not plead facts with specificity, identify asserted claims, or map accused product features to claim elements. The following charts summarize the infringement theory for representative independent claims based on the general allegations in the complaint.
’703 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a routine for modifying at least one embedded object URL of a web page to include a hostname prepended to a domain name and path | The complaint alleges that the "Footprint" service constitutes direct infringement of the patent, which requires this functionality. | ¶10 | col. 4:1-17 |
| a set of content servers, distinct from the content provider server, for hosting at least some of the embedded objects | The complaint alleges that the "Footprint" service constitutes direct infringement of the patent, which requires this functionality. | ¶10 | col. 3:4-12 |
| at least one first level name server that provides a first level domain name service (DNS) resolution | The complaint alleges that the "Footprint" service constitutes direct infringement of the patent, which requires this functionality. | ¶10 | col. 6:20-24 |
| wherein... the web page including the modified embedded object URL is served from the content provider server and the embedded object... is served from a given one of the content servers | The complaint alleges that the "Footprint" service constitutes direct infringement of the patent, which requires this functionality. | ¶10 | col. 3:9-16 |
’030 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a plurality of delivery sites connected to the network, wherein at least one of the delivery sites stores at least one copy of the same file | The complaint alleges the "Footprint" service is a content delivery service that infringes, which implies the use of multiple delivery sites. | ¶23 | col. 7:18-24 |
| a user terminal connected to the network | The "Footprint" service is alleged to be a content delivery service for internet users, who use terminals. | ¶23 | col. 7:61-63 |
| a network traffic testing apparatus for selecting a preferred delivery site from all delivery sites connected to the network | The complaint alleges that the "Footprint" service constitutes direct infringement of the patent, which requires this functionality. | ¶23 | col. 8:17-19 |
| a downloading apparatus for downloading the file from the preferred delivery site to the user terminal | The complaint alleges that the "Footprint" service constitutes direct infringement of the patent, which requires this functionality. | ¶23 | col. 13:31-36 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Evidentiary Questions: The complaint's allegations are conclusory and lack technical detail. A central point of contention will be whether discovery reveals that the "Footprint" service actually operates in the manner required by the claims. For the ’703 Patent, does Footprint modify URLs to split delivery between a content provider and a separate network of servers? For the ’030 Patent, does Footprint utilize a client-side "testing apparatus" to dynamically measure network performance and select a server for a specific user?
- Scope Questions: The dispute may raise questions about the scope of key claim limitations. For the ’703 patent, what constitutes an "embedded object"? For the ’030 patent, what is a "network traffic testing apparatus"? The case could turn on whether the architecture of the "Footprint" service meets the specific definitions of these terms as construed in light of the patent specifications.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- For the ’703 Patent:
- The Term: "embedded object"
- Context and Importance: The claims require separating a base document from its "embedded objects" for delivery from different sources. The definition of this term is critical because it dictates what types of web content fall within the scope of the patented method.
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides examples such as "images, audio, video, or the like," suggesting the term is not limited to a single file type (’703 Patent, col. 5:25-27).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The context consistently discusses objects within an HTML document that are fetched to render a single page, which could support an argument that the term is limited to components of a composite web page and does not cover, for example, a standalone file download initiated by a user click (’703 Patent, col. 3:9-12; col. 5:22-30).
- For the ’030 Patent:
- The Term: "network traffic testing apparatus"
- Context and Importance: This "apparatus" is the core of the claimed invention, responsible for performing the tests that enable optimized server selection. Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition—particularly whether it requires a client-side software component—will be central to the infringement analysis.
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Claim 1 defines the apparatus functionally as being "for selecting a preferred delivery site," which could be argued to cover any system, whether client- or server-based, that performs this function based on network tests (’030 Patent, col. 17:24-27).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes this element as a "configuration utility" that runs on the "user terminal" and performs specific tests like "Ping," "Traceroute," and download throughput measurements. This could support a narrower construction requiring a distinct software component operating on the end-user's machine (’030 Patent, col. 8:17-19, col. 9:55-10:9).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The prayer for relief seeks an injunction against inducing infringement (Compl. Prayer ¶C). However, the body of the complaint only alleges "direct infringement" and does not plead specific facts to support a claim for inducement, such as knowledge of the patents and intent to cause infringement (Compl. ¶10).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint requests trebled damages for willful infringement of both patents, based on the allegation that infringements will continue after the filing of the suit (Compl. Prayer ¶E). There are no allegations of pre-suit knowledge.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- An Evidentiary and Factual Question: The primary issue in this case is whether Defendant's "Footprint" service in fact operates using the specific technologies claimed in the patents. The complaint's lack of technical detail creates a significant evidentiary gap that will need to be filled through discovery. The case will likely hinge on factual evidence establishing whether Footprint employs the URL-modification and DNS-redirection architecture of the ’703 patent and the user-side network testing of the ’030 patent.
- A Definitional and Technical Question: The case will likely turn on claim construction, particularly the scope of core technical terms. A central question will be whether the term "network traffic testing apparatus" in the ’030 patent can be construed to read on the "Footprint" system, or if there is a fundamental mismatch between the patent's focus on a client-side utility and the potentially server-side architecture of the accused service. Similarly, the definition of "embedded object" in the ’703 patent will be critical to defining the boundaries of the alleged infringement.