In the case of Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc., 2013, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Limelight Networks over a patent dispute with Akamai Technologies. The issue at hand was whether or not Limelight had infringed upon a patent held by Akamai that involved methods for delivering content over the internet more efficiently. The court found that since some steps of the patented method were performed by Limelight and others by its customers, there could be no direct infringement under existing law because all steps must be performed by one entity for liability to occur. This decision overturned an earlier ruling from the Federal Circuit which had expanded liability for induced infringement to cases where multiple parties collectively perform all steps of a patented method.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc., argued that the majority's decision to reverse and remand was incorrect because it failed to consider whether or not a company could be held liable for inducing infringement even if no one has directly infringed upon a patent under 35 U.S.C §271(a). The dissent believed that this issue should have been addressed by the court as it is an important aspect of patent law which needs clarification. They also disagreed with the majority's interpretation of precedent cases and felt they were misapplied in this instance. Furthermore, they expressed concern over how this ruling might impact future cases involving complex technological processes where multiple parties are involved but none individually infringe on all elements of a patented process.