In the 2015 remand decision, the Federal Circuit expanded the scope of vicarious liability in such cases, holding that one actor could be held liable for the acts of another actor "when an alleged infringer conditions participation in an activity or receipt of a benefit upon performance of a step or steps of a patented method and establishes the manner or timing of that performance."

They assigned their rights in the patent to MIT, which granted an exclusive license to Akamai Technologies, Inc., a company that the inventors formed in 1998.

But while the case was still pending, the Federal Circuit decided a case in which it held that to find direct infringement a single party must perform every step of a claimed method or else must exercise "control or direction" over the entire process so that "every step is attributable to the controlling party.

[8] The Supreme Court said, "The Federal Circuit’s analysis fundamentally misunderstands what it means to infringe a method patent.

[10]In the course of its ruling, the Supreme Court stated: Assuming without deciding that the Federal Circuit's holding in Muniauction is correct, there has simply been no infringement of the method in which respondents have staked out an interest, because the performance of all the patent's steps is not attributable to any one person.

In May 2015, a panel of the Federal Circuit once again addressed the jury verdict and found that Limelight is not liable for direct infringement.

"[14] One judge dissented, arguing that the majority ruling "divorces patent law from mainstream legal principles by refusing to accept that § 271(a) includes joint tortfeasor liability" and it "creates a gaping hole in what for centuries has been recognized as an actionable form of infringement."

The court said that it would hold one entity responsible for another's performance of method steps in two sets of circumstances: In past cases, the court noted that it had held that "an actor is liable for infringement under § 271(a) if it acts through an agent (applying traditional agency principles) or contracts with another to perform one or more steps of a claimed method."

To those two circumstances, the court held that it would now add a third: We conclude, on the facts of this case, that liability under § 271(a) can also be found when an alleged infringer conditions participation in an activity or receipt of a benefit upon performance of a step or steps of a patented method and establishes the manner or timing of that performance.The court noted that this is copyright law's "vicarious liability" rule as stated in Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd.[16] Further, "Whether a single actor directed or controlled the acts of one or more third parties is a question of fact, reviewable on appeal for substantial evidence, when tried to a jury."

As for the joint enterprise basis for liability, the court instructed that it would follow the rule of the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 491 cmt.

After further proceedings, the Federal Circuit remanded the case to the district court, for it to reinstate the 2008 jury verdict of infringement and the $40 million plus lost profits award.

[18][19] Limelight announced its intention to appeal the judgment to the U.S. Supreme Court,[20] and on January 26, 2016, filed a certiorari petition.

[27]For example, a company may own a patent that covers a diagnostic method having steps that could be practiced by two entities, a physician and a laboratory.

Alternatively, by understanding patent infringement more restrictively, should courts effectively sanction “avoision” behavior [combining aspects of law "evasion" and "avoidance"] that might artificially divide up acts of technological exploitation?

[34]In Eli Lilly & Co. v. Teva Parenteral Meds., Inc.,[35] the district court applied the Akamai ruling to find patent infringement.

Here, the labeling says: It is very important to take folic acid [...] during your treatment with ALITMA to lower your chances of harmful side effects.

You must start taking 400-1000 micrograms of folic acid every day [...][39] Furthermore, the labeling requires instruction that "[i]f the patient fails to carry out this step, he or she would not receive the benefit of the patented method, i.e. a reduction of potentially life-threatening toxicities caused by pemetrexed.

The Federal Circuit said, first, that there was no direct infringement under the new theory: The evidence presented to the district court indisputably shows that Medtronic does not condition the use of, or receipt of a benefit from, the CareLink System on the performance of all of Medgraph's method steps.

Indeed, the evidence indicates that Medtronic benefits when patients use its continuous glucose monitoring device, which does not involve ensuring detachment after each measurement.

The evidence also shows that Medtronic freely permits using the CareLink System without performing synchronization, and it denies no benefit to such users for their choices to do so.