Akamai v. AMPS: CDN Patent Case Paused for USPTO Reexamination
Updated on Dec. 5, 2025 | Written by Patsnap Team
Introduction
In a procedural outcome highlighting the strategic interplay between district court litigation and USPTO proceedings, the Delaware District Court administratively closed Akamai Technologies’ patent infringement action against Automated Media Processing Solutions, Inc. (AMPS) on February 20, 2025. The Akamai AMPS patent case analysis reveals how parallel USPTO challenges can reshape content delivery network patent infringement litigation.
This dismissal after 820 days underscores a growing trend: accused infringers leveraging ex parte reexamination to pause district court patent disputes. For IP professionals tracking Delaware court patent cases, this outcome offers critical lessons on multi-forum patent strategy.
Case Summary
| Field | Details |
|---|---|
| Case Name | Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. Automated Media Processing Solutions, Inc. |
| Case Number | 1:22-cv-01531 |
| Court | Delaware District Court, First Instance |
| Filing/Closure | Nov. 23, 2022 – Feb. 20, 2025 (820 days) |
| Outcome | Administratively Closed (Stayed) |
| Patents | US8543667B2 |
| Products | Policy-based content insertion |
| Plaintiff Counsel | Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP (James R. Batchelder) |
| Defendant Counsel | Potter Anderson & Corroon, LLP (Charles S. Barquist) |
| Termination Basis | Administratively Closed – USPTO Reexamination Pending |
Case Overview
The Parties
Akamai Technologies, Inc. is a global leader in CDN services, cloud security, and edge computing. With an extensive patent portfolio, Akamai actively enforces IP rights in digital content delivery.
Automated Media Processing Solutions, Inc. (AMPS) operates in media processing and content management, facing allegations its technology infringed Akamai’s patented content insertion methods.
The Patent at Issue
US8543667B2 covers innovations in policy-based content insertion—technology enabling dynamic insertion of advertisements or localized media into digital streams based on predefined policies. Research patent families on Patsnap Eureka IP to explore related CDN patents.
The Accused Products
Akamai alleged AMPS’s policy-based content insertion products infringed the ‘667 patent—technology representing substantial value in streaming media and digital advertising markets.
Legal Representation
Akamai retained Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP with James R. Batchelder and Adam Wyatt Poff. AMPS was represented by Potter Anderson & Corroon, LLP, led by Charles S. Barquist and Marc J. Pernick.
Litigation Timeline
November 23, 2022: Akamai filed in Delaware District Court, selecting a venue known for sophisticated patent dockets.
Chief Judge Richard G. Andrews presided, recognized for efficient complex IP case management.
February 19, 2025: Court granted stay based on pending ex parte reexamination at the USPTO.
February 20, 2025: Judge Andrews administratively closed the case pending reexamination resolution.
💡 Key Insight: The 820-day timeline reflects complications from parallel USPTO proceedings rather than merits resolution—a pattern increasingly common in patent litigation.
Learn more on our official website →Patsnap
The Verdict and Legal Analysis
Outcome
The court administratively closed case 1:22-cv-01531 without deciding infringement or patent validity. The order preserves reopening rights once USPTO proceedings conclude. No damages awarded; no injunctive relief addressed.
Verdict Cause Analysis
Administrative closure stemmed from ex parte reexamination concerning US8543667B2. Per USPTO MPEP Chapter 2200, reexamination allows reconsideration of patent validity based on prior art.
Courts routinely stay litigation when USPTO proceedings may resolve validity questions, evaluating:
- ⚖️ Litigation stage
- ⚖️ Issue simplification potential
- ⚖️ Discovery burden reduction
Judge Andrews determined pending reexamination warranted administrative closure—consistent with Delaware’s pragmatic docket management approach.
Legal Significance
This policy-based content insertion patent infringement 2025 outcome reinforces key principles:
USPTO Proceedings as Strategy: Accused infringers can leverage reexamination to create parallel validity challenges pressuring patent holders.
Delaware Stay Approach: Judge Andrews’s willingness to close pending USPTO resolution aligns with efficient docket management.
No Merits Precedent: Without substantive rulings, no precedent exists on claim construction or infringement for this technology. Track litigation trends with Patsnap Eureka IP for similar CDN cases.
Strategic Takeaways
⚖️ For Patent Holders:
- Monitor USPTO filings; reexamination requests can emerge at any stage
- Evaluate prosecution history and prior art exposure before assertion
- Build timelines accounting for potential stays
⚖️ For Accused Infringers:
- Ex parte reexamination remains viable for creating parallel proceedings
- Strategic USPTO timing significantly impacts litigation dynamics
- Administrative closure reduces near-term costs while preserving options
🔬 For R&D Teams:
- Policy-based content insertion patents remain actively enforced
- Freedom-to-operate analyses should account for Akamai’s CDN portfolio
- Monitor reexamination outcomes for design guidance
Industry and Competitive Implications
The closure leaves CDN competitive dynamics unchanged—temporarily. Akamai retains patent rights pending reexamination; AMPS avoids immediate infringement findings.
📊 Market Impact: Companies in streaming, ad-tech, and content delivery should note Akamai’s continued enforcement posture. Analyze patent landscapes on Patsnap Eureka IP to assess CDN patent exposure.
📊 Licensing Considerations: Potential licensees may await reexamination outcomes before negotiating, affecting near-term licensing revenue.
💡 Key Insight: This case reflects broader patterns where parallel USPTO proceedings increasingly determine district court outcomes—requiring integrated multi-forum litigation budgeting.
Key Takeaways
⚖️ For Patent Attorneys:
- Ex parte reexamination effectively pauses Delaware litigation
- Administrative closure preserves reopening rights
- Monitor USPTO proceedings for strategic timing
⚖️ For IP Professionals:
- Coordinate district court and USPTO strategies from inception
- Budget for extended timelines with parallel proceedings
- Explore similar cases on Patsnap Eureka IP
🔬 For R&D Leaders:
- Conduct thorough FTO analyses for CDN technologies
- Track ‘667 patent reexamination for product planning
- Reexamination outcomes may alter design-around requirements
FAQ
What patent was involved in Akamai v. AMPS? US8543667B2, covering policy-based content insertion technology.
Why was the case dismissed? Administrative closure due to pending USPTO ex parte reexamination—not a merits determination.
Can this case reopen? Yes. The court order provides for reopening once reexamination concludes.
For CDN patent litigation analysis, start your patent research on Patsnap Eureka IP.
External Resources: USPTO Patent Center | PACER | Delaware District Court
Disclaimer: This article is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The analysis presented reflects publicly available case information and should not be relied upon as a substitute for consultation with a qualified patent attorney. Readers should seek independent legal counsel for advice on specific patent matters. Case outcomes and legal interpretations may change as proceedings develop.
