Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Mediapointe, Inc.

Authored by: Jeremy J. Gustrowsky

A recent decision highlights the importance of clear and objective language in patent claims, especially when using terms of degree like “optimal” or “best.” In a dispute between Akamai Technologies, Inc. and MediaPointe, Inc., the Federal Circuit reviewed patents covering systems for efficiently routing streamed media content over the Internet (U.S. Patent No. 8,559,426 and U.S. Patent No. 9,426,195). The patents described an “intelligent distribution network” that directs user requests to the best-performing nodes to minimize delays and bandwidth issues.

The court found that the claims using “optimal” and “best” were indefinite and therefore invalid. While the patents described using trace-route results—like latency and number of hops—to help determine the best route, the court noted that the specification did not provide clear guidance on how to weigh these factors or resolve conflicts between them. For example, a route with fewer hops might have higher latency, and the patent did not explain which should be prioritized. The court emphasized that patent claims must provide objective boundaries so that others can understand the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty.

For the remaining claims, which did not use the problematic language, the court also sided with Akamai on noninfringement. MediaPointe argued that Akamai’s system received a “request for media content” when a user entered a web address, triggering a DNS query. However, the court clarified that only actual computer messages received by the management center—not a user’s mere attempt to access content—could meet the claim requirements. Since Akamai’s system did not receive a direct request for media content as defined by the patent, there was no infringement.

This decision serves as a reminder for patent drafters to avoid vague terms of degree unless the patent clearly defines how to measure and apply them. Without such clarity, even innovative technology can lose its patent protection in court.