DCT

1:26-cv-01130

NovaCloud Licensing LLC v. Akamai Tech Inc

Log In
Key Events
Complaint
complaint Intelligence

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:26-cv-01130, D. Del., 09/04/2026
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted to be proper in the District of Delaware because the Defendant, Akamai Technologies, Inc., is a Delaware corporation.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s content delivery network, cloud computing, and video streaming services infringe five U.S. patents related to network load balancing, traffic management, resource allocation, and data streaming.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue concerns methods for managing and distributing data traffic and computational resources in large-scale networks, which is fundamental to the operation of modern content delivery networks (CDNs) and cloud infrastructure.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint states that Plaintiff NovaCloud was formed in 2024 to own patented technology originating from Ericsson. The complaint alleges that NovaCloud provided Akamai with a list of the asserted patents and offered to discuss a license on or around February 27, 2025, an event that may be relevant to the allegations of willful infringement.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2008-01-23 ’028 Patent Priority Date
2012-05-04 ’867 Patent and ’651 Patent Priority Date
2012-10-04 ’206 Patent Priority Date
2013-03-19 ’028 Patent Issue Date
2013-10-23 ’262 Patent Priority Date
2014-09-02 ’867 Patent Issue Date
2015-02-03 ’206 Patent Issue Date
2015-12-29 ’651 Patent Issue Date
2018-02-20 ’262 Patent Issue Date
2024-01-01 NovaCloud formed (approximate date based on complaint)
2025-02-27 Alleged pre-suit notice sent from NovaCloud to Akamai
2026-09-04 Complaint Filing Date

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 8,401,028 - "Selection of an Edge Node in a Fixed Access Communication Network," issued March 19, 2013

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section identifies issues with conventional "static" and "DNS-based" methods for selecting network edge nodes (e.g., gateways or servers). These methods are described as difficult to reconfigure and unable to account for dynamic network conditions like current traffic load, which can result in suboptimal performance and overloaded network elements ([’028](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/patent/8401028) Patent, col. 2:13-31).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a centralized "selection logic" entity that receives a service request from a host. This selection logic then obtains current data about a plurality of available edge nodes from one or more network sources, such as a "dynamically updated" database. Based on this real-time data (e.g., node status, capabilities, network topology), the selection logic chooses the most appropriate edge node for the host's request and sends a response identifying the selected node, enabling the host to establish communication ([’028](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/patent/8401028) Patent, abstract; [’028](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/patent/8401028) Patent, col. 4:60-68; [’028](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/patent/8401028) Patent, Fig. 1).
  • Technical Importance: This approach enables dynamic, load-aware network traffic management, allowing for more efficient use of resources and improved quality of service in large-scale communication networks ([’028](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/patent/8401028) Patent, col. 2:28-31).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 ([Compl. ¶23](https://ex:cit:6)).
  • The essential elements of independent claim 1, a method claim, include:
    • At a selection node, receiving from a host entity a request for a network service;
    • Obtaining, from a dynamically updated database, data comprising information relating to the status and capabilities of each edge node of a plurality of edge nodes;
    • On the basis of the retrieved data, selecting an edge node from the plurality of edge nodes; and
    • Sending a response to the host entity, the response including information identifying the selected edge node.

U.S. Patent No. 9,225,651 - "Method and Apparatus for Load Balancing," issued December 29, 2015

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the scalability challenges of flow-based load balancers in high-bandwidth networks. Conventional solutions that maintain a "flow table" with an entry for every single network flow consume substantial memory and processing time, particularly when dealing with millions of concurrent flows ([’651](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/patent/9225651) Patent, col. 2:10-21).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent describes an adaptive load balancing method. An initial processing engine (PE) is selected for a packet based on a general "mapping entry." If the load on this target PE exceeds a threshold, the system then determines if the packet is the start of a new flow. If it is a new flow, a different, less-loaded PE is selected, and a "scheduling status" is created specifically for this redirected flow. This ensures that state information is only created and maintained for flows that require redirection, not for all flows, thereby reducing the size of the necessary state tables ([’651](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/patent/9225651) Patent, abstract; [’651](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/patent/9225651) Patent, col. 6:1-24).
  • Technical Importance: This technique aims to make load balancing more scalable and resource-efficient in high-traffic environments by minimizing the amount of state that must be stored and queried ([’651](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/patent/9225651) Patent, col. 3:9-19).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 17 ([Compl. ¶35](https://ex:cit:11)).
  • The essential elements of independent claim 17, an apparatus claim, include:
    • An engine selecting unit configured to select a first processing engine (PE) as a target PE based on a mapping entry;
    • An engine load determining unit configured to determine whether the load of the target PE exceeds a threshold; and
    • An engine selection updating unit configured to update the target PE selection based on a "scheduling status" of the traffic flow if the threshold is exceeded.

U.S. Patent No. 8,825,867 - "Two Level Packet Distribution with Stateless First Level Packet Distribution to A Group of Servers and Stateful Second Level Packet Distribution To A Server Within the Group," issued September 2, 2014

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a two-level architecture for packet distribution to improve scalability. The first level is "stateless" and selects a group of servers for an incoming packet flow without maintaining per-flow state. The second level is "stateful" and distributed among the server groups; it selects a specific server within the group to process the flow, thereby distributing the burden of state maintenance ([’867](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/patent/8825867) Patent, abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts at least claim 15 ([Compl. ¶47](https://ex:cit:13)).
  • Accused Features: Akamai's DNS, Global Traffic management, and Application Load Balancer ([Compl. ¶42](https://ex:cit:14)).

U.S. Patent No. 8,949,206 - "System and Method for Creating Multiple Versions of a Description File," issued February 3, 2015

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent addresses the inefficiency of creating and storing many full copies of media content to support different versions (e.g., for ad insertion, language tracks, or parental controls). The invention proposes creating multiple versions of a descriptor file (e.g., a manifest file like an MPEG-DASH MPD) by programmatically manipulating a source descriptor file based on a set of rules, thereby delivering different experiences without duplicating the underlying media segments ([’206](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/patent/8949206) Patent, abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts at least claim 14 ([Compl. ¶59](https://ex:cit:16)).
  • Accused Features: Akamai's manifest manipulation services ([Compl. ¶54](https://ex:cit:17)).

U.S. Patent No. 9,900,262 - "Methods, Nodes and Computer Program for Enabling of Resource Component Allocation," issued February 20, 2018

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent concerns resource management in virtualized or shared computing environments. It describes a central "resource manager" that collects performance data from applications running on various hosts. The manager instructs hosts to measure specific metrics and receives the data back in "resource frames." Based on an analysis of these frames, the manager determines how to allocate resources (e.g., CPU, memory) for the applications ([’262](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/patent/9900262) Patent, abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts at least claim 9 ([Compl. ¶71](https://ex:cit:19)).
  • Accused Features: Akamai DataStream such as DataStream 1 and DataStream 2 ([Compl. ¶66](https://ex:cit:20)).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities as various components of Akamai's service offerings, including its "Node Balancer" ([Compl. ¶18](https://ex:cit:21)), "Global Traffic management and Application Load Balancer" ([Compl. ¶30](https://ex:cit:22)), "DNS" ([Compl. ¶42](https://ex:cit:14)), "manifest manipulation services" ([Compl. ¶54](https://ex:cit:17)), and "DataStream" services ([Compl. ¶66](https://ex:cit:20)).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that Akamai is a "leading provider of distributed computing platforms, including, e.g., content delivery networks, and cloud services" ([Compl. ¶10](https://ex:cit:23)). The accused products and services are alleged to be integral to Akamai's business, underpinning technologies like file storage, streaming services, and cloud-based applications ([Compl. ¶4](https://ex:cit:24)). The complaint asserts that these offerings perform functions related to network load balancing, traffic management, and video streaming that infringe the asserted patents ([Compl. ¶11](https://ex:cit:25)). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint repeatedly references Exhibits 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10, which it states contain descriptions of the accused instrumentalities and claim charts mapping patent claims to accused functionality ([Compl. ¶23](https://ex:cit:6); [Compl. ¶35](https://ex:cit:11); [Compl. ¶47](https://ex:cit:13); [Compl. ¶59](https://ex:cit:16); [Compl. ¶71](https://ex:cit:19)). As these exhibits were not provided, a detailed claim chart analysis is not possible. The infringement theory is summarized below in prose.

  • ’028 Patent Infringement Allegations: The complaint alleges that Akamai's "Node Balancer" infringes at least claim 1. The theory suggests that Akamai's system functions as the claimed "selection node" by receiving service requests and dynamically selecting an edge node based on current network data, which is then identified back to the requesting entity ([Compl. ¶¶18-23](https://ex:cit:26)).

  • ’651 Patent Infringement Allegations: The complaint alleges that Akamai's "Global Traffic management and Application Load Balancer" infringe at least claim 17. The infringement theory posits that Akamai's system employs an apparatus for adaptive load balancing that, upon detecting that a selected processing engine is overloaded, uses a "scheduling status" to update the engine selection for a given traffic flow, consistent with the patent's claims ([Compl. ¶¶30-35](https://ex:cit:27)).

  • Identified Points of Contention:

    • Scope Questions: For the ’028 Patent, a central question may be whether Akamai’s distributed system architecture includes a single, identifiable "selection node" as contemplated by the patent, or if its functionality is performed in a manner that falls outside the claim’s scope. For the ’651 Patent, a key dispute may revolve around whether the term "scheduling status" as used in the patent, which is created for redirected flows, can be read upon the state management mechanisms used in Akamai's load balancers.
    • Technical Questions: A key evidentiary question for the ’028 Patent will be what specific network data Akamai's system uses for node selection and whether that data is obtained from a "dynamically updated database" as required by claim 1. For the ’651 Patent, the analysis will turn on whether the accused system uses a two-tiered state logic that distinguishes between a general "mapping entry" for all flows and a separate "scheduling status" created only for flows redirected due to load.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • Term: "selection node" (from ’028 Patent, claim 1)

    • Context and Importance: This term defines the central actor in the claimed method. Its construction will be critical to determining whether Akamai's potentially distributed load balancing architecture infringes a claim that recites a singular "selection node". Practitioners may focus on this term to dispute whether the accused architecture aligns with the one described in the patent.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification also uses the terms "selection logic" and "central entity," which may support a functional interpretation not tied to a single physical device ([’028](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/patent/8401028) Patent, col. 4:60-61).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent figures depict the "selection logic" (105) as a discrete block that communicates with other specific servers, which could support an argument that the term requires a distinct, centralized component as shown ([’028](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/patent/8401028) Patent, Fig. 1).

  • Term: "scheduling status" (from ’651 Patent, claim 17)

    • Context and Importance: The definition of this term is crucial because the patent's claimed novelty lies in creating this status only for redirected flows to save resources. The infringement analysis will depend on whether Akamai's system uses a data structure that meets this specific definition and function.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term could be argued to cover any state information that influences the routing of a flow after an initial selection is updated due to load. The patent abstract describes its function broadly ([’651](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/patent/9225651) Patent, abstract).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification draws a distinction between a general "mapping entry" and the "scheduling status", which is created for a "redirected flow" and stored in a "redirected flow table" that is initially empty. This suggests "scheduling status" is a specific type of state information used only for exception handling, not general flow mapping ([’651](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/patent/9225651) Patent, col. 6:4-18).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Akamai induces infringement by encouraging its customers to use the accused services. This is based on allegations that Akamai provides "information, education and instructions on the use of the Accused Instrumentalities" ([Compl. ¶25](https://ex:cit:30); [Compl. ¶37](https://ex:cit:31); [Compl. ¶49](https://ex:cit:32); [Compl. ¶61](https://ex:cit:33); [Compl. ¶73](https://ex:cit:34)).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness allegations are based on Akamai’s alleged knowledge of the asserted patents since at least "around February 27, 2025," the date Plaintiff claims it notified Akamai, and Akamai's continued alleged infringement thereafter ([Compl. ¶24](https://ex:cit:35); [Compl. ¶36](https://ex:cit:36); [Compl. ¶48](https://ex:cit:37); [Compl. ¶60](https://ex:cit:38); [Compl. ¶72](https://ex:cit:39)).

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

  • A core issue will be one of architectural equivalence: do Akamai's large-scale, distributed content delivery network services embody the specific, and in some cases seemingly centralized, architectures described in the asserted patents (e.g., a singular "selection node" from the ’028 patent, or a distinct "stateless first level" from the ’867 patent), or is there a fundamental mismatch in their operational structure?
  • A second key question will concern state management and functionality: does the evidence show that Akamai's systems use the precise state-handling logic claimed in the load-balancing patents (e.g., the creation of a separate "scheduling status" only for redirected flows, as in the ’651 patent), and do its manifest and data stream services perform the specific steps of file manipulation and resource allocation recited in the ’206 and ’262 patents, respectively?
  • A third area of focus will be claim construction: the case may turn on whether key terms like "selection node" and "scheduling status" are given a broad, functional definition that could cover Akamai’s modern architecture, or a narrower, structural definition based on specific embodiments in the patents, which could favor the defendant.