Software Patents – US Government vs. Microsoft

25 March 2011 Internet, IT & e-Discovery Blog Blog
Authors: Peter Vogel

The US Supreme Court will hear argument on April 18 in the patent infringement case in which Microsoft has been enjoined from selling Word with XML features.  The US Solicitor General filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court against Microsoft and endorsing the US Patent & Trademark Office who issued the 5,787,449 patent that protected i4i’s metacode technology.  More than 100 companies have filed amicus briefs supporting i4i including the military and venture capitalists.  On the other hand Microsoft has “20 amicus briefs, which represent about 60 companies and individuals, including Google, Apple, Cisco, Intel, Red Hat, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and 37 law and economics professors.”  The Supreme Court ruling in the i4i case will have a significant impact on patent law in the US, but many thought the Supreme Court would clarify software patents in the Bilski case, but unfortunately that did not happen.  In the meantime Congress is once again considering legislation reforming patent laws.  Stay tuned for changes to patent laws in the US.

2009 Patent Judgment

Before the case got to the Supreme Court, Microsoft lost its appeal to the US Federal Circuit which sustained the trial court decision from 2009 where US District Judge Leonard Davis (Eastern District of Texas in Tyler) enjoined Microsoft from selling XML components of Word.  Also Judge Davis ordered Microsoft to pay $40 million for willful infringement and $37 million in prejudgment interest. This injunction and award of willful damages follows a May, 2009 jury verdict that ordered Microsoft to pay i4i $200 million for infringing the 5,787,449 patent.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Authors

Related Services

Insights

RCE PTA Carve-Out Resumes After Interference
18 September 2019
PharmaPatents
The Ninth Circuit Expected to Rule that Doctors Can Be Wrong in the Winter v. Gardens False Claims Act Case
18 September 2019
Legal News: Government Enforcement Defense & Investigations
Upcoming Webinar: Maximizing Solar Tax Credits - Navigating the Start of Construction Rules (Part 1)
17 September 2019
Renewable Energy Outlook
When Birds Finally Find a Nest
17 September 2019
Dashboard Insights
Lacktman, Ferrante Cited in mHealth Intelligence About Ryan Haight Act
19 September 2019
mHealth Intelligence
Tinnen Discusses How Viewpoint Diversity Helps Businesses Thrive
18 September 2019
InsideTrack
Vernaglia Comments on AHA v Azar Decision
18 September 2019
MedPage Today
Lach Comments on Launch of New Group
16 September 2019
BizTimes Milwaukee
MedTech Impact Expo & Conference
13-15 December 2019
Las Vegas, NV
Review of 2020 Medicare Changes for Telehealth
11 December 2019
Member Call
BRG Healthcare Leadership Conference
06 December 2019
Washington, D.C.
CTeL Telehealth Fall Summit 2019
04-06 December 2019
Washington, D.C.