Posts Tagged: "Microsoft"

On Friday, September 17, 2010, I had the opportunity to chat with Professor Mark Lemley, who is the William H. Neukom Professor at Stanford Law School and partner in the San Francisco law firm Durie Tangri LLP. Lemley is well known both in the academic community and the practice community. In fact, he is one of only a select few that have managed to simultaneously have a stellar career both in academia and in private practice. I chat with Lemley via e-mail from time to time on various matters, and we have talked about an interview for some time. Then a draft of a amicus brief Lemly filed today with the United States Supreme Court arrived in my inbox and I knew this was the issue that would make for an excellent interview. Lemley is leading the charge of law professors who are asking the Supreme Court to review i4i v. Microsoft and address the presumption of validity enjoyed by an issued patent, pegging the presumption to those references considered by the patent examiner during prosecution.

I don’t know why Microsoft didn’t present all the prior art in the Texas case sooner, and I can’t explain why they might have wanted to wait until after asking the Supreme Court to take the appeal before filing the most recent reexamination request. One thing is for certain though: Microsoft would be in a much better position at this point if it had filed the request a year ago. Had they filed the request sooner they might already be at advisory action stage now, which could have provided a stronger case for refusing to enjoin the defendant as was the case in Flexiteek Americas.

On Friday, August 27, 2010, Interval Research Corporation brought a patent infringement lawsuit against a who’s who of tech companies in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington at Seattle, specifically suing AOL, Inc., Apple, Inc., eBay, Inc., Facebook, Inc., Google Inc., Netflix, Inc., Office Depot, Inc., OfficeMax Inc., Staples, Inc., Yahoo! Inc. and YouTube, LLC.…

Allvoice sought a remand of the Holt application to the examiner for further prosecution or to issue an order requiring AVRS to show cause why judgment should not be entered against the Holt application. Without requiring AVRS to even file a response, the Federal Circuit, per Chief Judge Rader, explained that there was simply no justification for the issuance of a writ of mandamus because there was no showing that an ordinary appeal wouldn’t suffice after the PTO finally disposed of the interference proceeding. Of course, that doesn’t take into consideration the need for Allvoice to quite title to proceed with its infringement action against Microsoft. The plot thickens!

All in all I would characterize the mood of the PTO officials I spoke with as up-beat and the mood of the stakeholders in attendance was generally positive, but with reservations about the mechanics of Track 3. After the event I too would be upbeat if I were among the senior ranks at the USPTO. Those aspects that were viewed as negative or needing more work or clarification seemed few, were identified over and over again and should be addressable. That being the case it seems the majority of the proposal is acceptable and the community remains hungry for these types of creative initiatives, which sadly is all we have given that Congress continues to be AWOL on even relatively meaningless reforms, let alone reforms that could actually do some real good.

The reality is that the term patent troll seems to be more in the eye of the beholder than anything else. So a patent troll is whoever is suing you because you must be correct and some evil wrong-doer is holding you hostage. Never mind that you are actually infringing and you are the real wrong-doer (i.e., tortfeasor). What is needed is a working definition for the term patent troll so that this nonsense can stop once and for all, and so the uninformed in the media can be spared the embarrassment of their own cluelessness. So lets take a look at some of the characteristics that will get you characterized as a patent troll and either confirm it as a useful indicator of a wrong-doer or as simply overblown and wholly inaccurate.

The reality is that individuals and companies fuel the piracy market. Simply stated, if there were no demand there would be no supply, so it is quite disingenuous for us to only point the finger at the supplier, but rather we ought to acknowledge that there is plenty of blame to go around, which may be a hard pill to swallow. And while there may an intellectual distinction between sharing software or music with a friend or family member, there exists a cultural indifference that borders on contempt for the rights of creators.

Earlier today the United States Supreme Court denied Microsoft Corporation’s petition for writ of certiorari in Lucent Technologies, Inc. v. Gateway, Inc. et al, with Microsoft being among the “et al.” While the Federal Circuit affirmed the validity and infringement aspects of the underlying decision of the United States Federal District Court for the District of Southern California, the Court vacated and remanded the damages portion to the district court for further proceedings because the damages calculation lacked sufficient evidentiary support. Despite the Federal Circuit vacating and remanding of the damages award of $357.69 million Microsoft appealed to the Supreme Court, an appeal that will never happen with the denial of the petition for writ of certiorari.

Earlier this week i4i Limited Partnership announced that the United States Patent and Trademark Office confirmed the patentability of all claims of the U.S. Patent 5,787,449. The ‘449 patent was being reexamined by the USPTO at the request of Microsoft after the Redmond giant lost close to $300 million as a result of infringement of the i4i patent. Microsoft was also ordered to stop selling Word or remove certain XML functionality. MS had put a lot of hope in reexamination, and now their options are running out. They are apparently contemplating an appeal to the US Supreme Court.

The victories selected represent a diverse array of wins, which a press release announcing the Top 10 list says is due to “the differing objectives of IP litigation today.” These victories range from multimillion-dollar jury verdicts, including the biggest patent award ever, which was won by Johnson & Johnson’s Centocor Ortho Biotech unit against Abbott Laboratories, to the i4i injunction win blocking the distribution of Microsoft Word editions having a popular XML feature.

Former Head of Patents at Microsoft and IBM, Marshall Phelps, Appointed to Article One Partners Board of Directors New York — February 1, 2010 — Article One Partners, the world’s largest patent validation firm, today announced the appointment of Marshall Phelps to its Board of Directors. The Director position with Article One is Phelps’ first board involvement within the IP…

If patents are good for Microsoft and the tech giants, patents are right for Red Hat and the open source community and patents are demanded by investors, as Dean Kamen explains, when small businesses seek funds, why would they be bad for independent inventors and small businesses? When you start out in business you don’t model yourself after those who fail, but rather after those who succeed, and the one thing successful businesses with proprietary and open source business models agree on is that patents are important enough to obtain. Simply stated, those who refuse to acknowledge the power and protection afforded by patents ignore reality and must be assumed to have an agenda.

Microsoft has lived a charmed life in the “mega award” world of patent infringement litigation.  For example, Microsoft recently dodged a $357 million jury award bullet in Lucent Technologies, Inc. v. Gateway, Inc. But it now looks like Microsoft’s luck finally ran out.  In i4i Limited Partnership v. Microsoft Corp., Microsoft was tagged with:  (1) a jury award of $200…

Earlier today, the Federal Circuit issued its decision giving i4i an early Christmas present and delivered a big fat lump of coal to Microsoft. The Federal Circuit has upheld Judge Davis’ decision with one small exception. The Federal Circuit found the 60 day period in which the injunction was to become effective too short, instead preferring to give Microsoft 5 months to comply with the permanent injunction, which means that the permanent injunction will go into effect on January 11, 2010.