<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: i4i Victorious at CAFC, Microsoft Word Enjoined Jan. 11, 2010</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/12/22/i4i-victorious-at-cafc-microsoft-word-enjoined-jan-11-2010/id=8006/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/12/22/i4i-victorious-at-cafc-microsoft-word-enjoined-jan-11-2010/id=8006/</link>
	<description>Patents, Software Patents, Patent Applications &#38; Patent Law</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 07:58:49 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Clear &#38; Convincing: Supreme Court Affirms CAFC in Microsoft v. i4i &#124; IPWatchdog.com &#124; Patents &#38; Patent Law</title>
		<link>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/12/22/i4i-victorious-at-cafc-microsoft-word-enjoined-jan-11-2010/id=8006/#comment-21739</link>
		<dc:creator>Clear &#38; Convincing: Supreme Court Affirms CAFC in Microsoft v. i4i &#124; IPWatchdog.com &#124; Patents &#38; Patent Law</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 Jun 2011 16:18:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=8006#comment-21739</guid>
		<description>[...] also granted in expedited fashion, and were held on September 23, 2009.  On December 22, 2009, the Federal Circuit issued its decision upholding Judge Davis’ decision with one small exception. The Federal Circuit found the 60 day [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] also granted in expedited fashion, and were held on September 23, 2009.  On December 22, 2009, the Federal Circuit issued its decision upholding Judge Davis’ decision with one small exception. The Federal Circuit found the 60 day [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: US Supreme Court Accepts Microsoft Appeal in i4i Case &#124; IPWatchdog.com &#124; Patents &#38; Patent Law</title>
		<link>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/12/22/i4i-victorious-at-cafc-microsoft-word-enjoined-jan-11-2010/id=8006/#comment-21514</link>
		<dc:creator>US Supreme Court Accepts Microsoft Appeal in i4i Case &#124; IPWatchdog.com &#124; Patents &#38; Patent Law</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 29 May 2011 02:59:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=8006#comment-21514</guid>
		<description>[...] which meant that the permanent injunction went into effect on January 11, 2010.  For more see: i4i Victorious at CAFC, Microsoft Word Enjoined Jan. 11, 2010 and CAFC Puts Coal in Microsoft’s Stocking by Affirming $240 Million Damage Award and Permanent [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] which meant that the permanent injunction went into effect on January 11, 2010.  For more see: i4i Victorious at CAFC, Microsoft Word Enjoined Jan. 11, 2010 and CAFC Puts Coal in Microsoft’s Stocking by Affirming $240 Million Damage Award and Permanent [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: CorporateCounsel.com Names Top 10 IP Litigation Wins of 2009 &#124; IPWatchdog.com &#124; Patents &#38; Patent Law</title>
		<link>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/12/22/i4i-victorious-at-cafc-microsoft-word-enjoined-jan-11-2010/id=8006/#comment-11917</link>
		<dc:creator>CorporateCounsel.com Names Top 10 IP Litigation Wins of 2009 &#124; IPWatchdog.com &#124; Patents &#38; Patent Law</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Mar 2010 18:46:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=8006#comment-11917</guid>
		<description>[...] Microsoft Word Slapped with Injunction &#8211; On August 11, 2009, the United States District Court Judge in the Eastern District of Texas issued a final order in the matter of i4i v. Microsoft. In addition to losing approximately $300 million, Judge Leonard Davis also entered a permanent injunction, ordering Microsoft to cease selling the ubiquitous word processing program Word.  This injunction was affirmed by the Federal Circuit on December 22, 2009.  For more see i4i Victorious at CAFC, Microsoft Word Enjoined Jan. 11, 2010. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Microsoft Word Slapped with Injunction &#8211; On August 11, 2009, the United States District Court Judge in the Eastern District of Texas issued a final order in the matter of i4i v. Microsoft. In addition to losing approximately $300 million, Judge Leonard Davis also entered a permanent injunction, ordering Microsoft to cease selling the ubiquitous word processing program Word.  This injunction was affirmed by the Federal Circuit on December 22, 2009.  For more see i4i Victorious at CAFC, Microsoft Word Enjoined Jan. 11, 2010. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dennis Meharchand</title>
		<link>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/12/22/i4i-victorious-at-cafc-microsoft-word-enjoined-jan-11-2010/id=8006/#comment-11654</link>
		<dc:creator>Dennis Meharchand</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Mar 2010 10:32:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=8006#comment-11654</guid>
		<description>Perhaps the real target is not Microsoft at all but Google? How does Google handle all that unstructured data it compiles? Is it Microsoft&#039;s strategy to deliberately lose?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Perhaps the real target is not Microsoft at all but Google? How does Google handle all that unstructured data it compiles? Is it Microsoft&#8217;s strategy to deliberately lose?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Abbott Labs Ordered to Pay $175 Million Pre-judgment Interest &#124; IPWatchdog.com &#124; Patents &#38; Patent Law</title>
		<link>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/12/22/i4i-victorious-at-cafc-microsoft-word-enjoined-jan-11-2010/id=8006/#comment-11465</link>
		<dc:creator>Abbott Labs Ordered to Pay $175 Million Pre-judgment Interest &#124; IPWatchdog.com &#124; Patents &#38; Patent Law</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 22 Feb 2010 00:33:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=8006#comment-11465</guid>
		<description>[...] announcing they would consider the Appeals Rules anew, and Microsoft getting re-slapped with a Word permanent injunction, I didn&#8217;t get around to it. Then when I set out to write this article today I was surprised [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] announcing they would consider the Appeals Rules anew, and Microsoft getting re-slapped with a Word permanent injunction, I didn&#8217;t get around to it. Then when I set out to write this article today I was surprised [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Gene Quinn</title>
		<link>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/12/22/i4i-victorious-at-cafc-microsoft-word-enjoined-jan-11-2010/id=8006/#comment-10398</link>
		<dc:creator>Gene Quinn</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 Jan 2010 16:47:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=8006#comment-10398</guid>
		<description>Rob-

If after Microsoft pays the patent is later successfully challenged and lost Microsoft will have no ability to go back and retrieve the money from i4i.  Unless Microsoft can get the case overturned on appeal to the Supreme Court, which is extremely unlikely, they will have to pay and even if the patent is later found to be improperly granted will not have any recourse.  Microsoft had the opportunity to make its case that the patent claims were invalid and did not, so now they have to live with that.  

As for i4i having done anything inappropriate, that would be impossible to prove given that both the USPTO, the district court and now the Federal Circuit have all agreed that the patent claims were appropriate and not invalid.  

-Gene</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Rob-</p>
<p>If after Microsoft pays the patent is later successfully challenged and lost Microsoft will have no ability to go back and retrieve the money from i4i.  Unless Microsoft can get the case overturned on appeal to the Supreme Court, which is extremely unlikely, they will have to pay and even if the patent is later found to be improperly granted will not have any recourse.  Microsoft had the opportunity to make its case that the patent claims were invalid and did not, so now they have to live with that.  </p>
<p>As for i4i having done anything inappropriate, that would be impossible to prove given that both the USPTO, the district court and now the Federal Circuit have all agreed that the patent claims were appropriate and not invalid.  </p>
<p>-Gene</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rob</title>
		<link>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/12/22/i4i-victorious-at-cafc-microsoft-word-enjoined-jan-11-2010/id=8006/#comment-10397</link>
		<dc:creator>Rob</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 Jan 2010 16:28:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=8006#comment-10397</guid>
		<description>What will happen if the patent is found to be based on prior art in the reexamination in two years.
Will Microsoft have to open a case against i4i then to retrieve the money ?
Can Microsoft make preempetive case on the i4i company reserving the damages during the time of the reexamination ? 
Will i4i have to repay all 290 million and possibly punative damges for filing a patent that was based on prior art and sueing other for that ?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What will happen if the patent is found to be based on prior art in the reexamination in two years.<br />
Will Microsoft have to open a case against i4i then to retrieve the money ?<br />
Can Microsoft make preempetive case on the i4i company reserving the damages during the time of the reexamination ?<br />
Will i4i have to repay all 290 million and possibly punative damges for filing a patent that was based on prior art and sueing other for that ?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: i4i Victorious at CAFC, Microsoft Word Enjoined Jan. 11, 2010 … Mortgage just to Me</title>
		<link>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/12/22/i4i-victorious-at-cafc-microsoft-word-enjoined-jan-11-2010/id=8006/#comment-10122</link>
		<dc:creator>i4i Victorious at CAFC, Microsoft Word Enjoined Jan. 11, 2010 … Mortgage just to Me</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 02 Jan 2010 00:36:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=8006#comment-10122</guid>
		<description>
[...] the rest here: i4i Victorious at CAFC, Microsoft Word Enjoined Jan. 11, 2010 &#8230;          By admin &#124; category: microsoft antispam &#124; tags: bee, eth, instant-messaging, outlook, [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] the rest here: i4i Victorious at CAFC, Microsoft Word Enjoined Jan. 11, 2010 &#8230;          By admin | category: microsoft antispam | tags: bee, eth, instant-messaging, outlook, [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Twas the Night before Christmas at i4i &#124; Post Grant Blog</title>
		<link>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/12/22/i4i-victorious-at-cafc-microsoft-word-enjoined-jan-11-2010/id=8006/#comment-10050</link>
		<dc:creator>Twas the Night before Christmas at i4i &#124; Post Grant Blog</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Dec 2009 13:12:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=8006#comment-10050</guid>
		<description>[...] Microsoft was granted an emergency stay pending the further review of the Federal Circuit.  As widely reported yesterday, the Federal Circuit has refused to overturn the injunction threatening the continued sale of [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Microsoft was granted an emergency stay pending the further review of the Federal Circuit.  As widely reported yesterday, the Federal Circuit has refused to overturn the injunction threatening the continued sale of [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: uberVU - social comments</title>
		<link>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/12/22/i4i-victorious-at-cafc-microsoft-word-enjoined-jan-11-2010/id=8006/#comment-10029</link>
		<dc:creator>uberVU - social comments</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Dec 2009 09:30:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=8006#comment-10029</guid>
		<description>[MARKED AS SPAM BY ANTISPAM BEE]&lt;strong&gt;Social comments and analytics for this post...&lt;/strong&gt;

This post was mentioned on Twitter by ipwatchdog: i4i Victory @ CAFC, MS Word Enjoined 1/11/10. MS to pay $200 million, obviousness not preserved. Xmas early for i4i. - http://bit.ly/7sb1rR...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[MARKED AS SPAM BY ANTISPAM BEE]<strong>Social comments and analytics for this post&#8230;</strong></p>
<p>This post was mentioned on Twitter by ipwatchdog: i4i Victory @ CAFC, MS Word Enjoined 1/11/10. MS to pay $200 million, obviousness not preserved. Xmas early for i4i. &#8211; <a href="http://bit.ly/7sb1rR.." rel="nofollow">http://bit.ly/7sb1rR..</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

