141 Ltd. P'ship And v. Microsoft Corp.

• Decision Date: 10 March 2010
• Docket Number: No. 2009-1504.,2009-1504.
• Citation: Ltd. P'ship & Infrastructures for Info. Inc., v Microsoft Corp., 598 F.3d 831 (Fed. Cir. 2010)
• Parties: 141 LIMITED PARTNERSHIP and Infrastructures for Information Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit

598 F.3d 831

141 LIMITED PARTNERSHIP and Infrastructures for Information Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 2009-1504.

United States Court of Appeals Federal Circuit.

Date : March 10, 2010.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Donald R. Dunner, Finnegan Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner L.L.P., of Washington, DC, argued for plaintiffs-appellees.With him on the brief were Don 0.Burley, Kara F. Stoll and Jason W. Melvin; and Erik R. Puknys, of Palo Alto, CA.Of counsel on the brief were Douglas A. Cawley and Jeffrey A. CarterMcKool Smith, P.C. of Dallas, TX, and T Gordon White, of Austin, TX.

Matthew D. Powers, Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, of Redwood Shores, CA, argued for defendant-appellant.With him on the brief were Kevin S. Kudlac and Amber H. Rovner, of Austin, TX.Of counsel on the brief were Matthew D. McGill, Minodora D. Vancea, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, of Washington, DC; and Isabella E. Fu, Microsoft Corporation, of Redmond, WA.Of counsel was David J. Lender, Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, of New York, NY.

John W. Thornburgh, Fish & Richardson, P.C, of San Diego, CA, for amici curiaeDell Inc. and Hewlett-Packard Company.With him on the brief were John E. Gartman; and Indranil Mukerji, of Washington, DC.

Richard A. Samp, Washington Legal Foundation, of Washington, DC, for amicus curiaeWashington Legal Foundation, of Washington, DC.With him on the brief was Daniel J. Popeo.

Before SCHALL, PROST, and MOORE, Circuit Judges.

PROST, Circuit Judge.

This is a patent infringement case about an invention for editing custom XML, a computer language.The owner of the patent, i4i Limited Partnership("i4i") brought suit against Microsoft Corporation("Microsoft"), alleging that the custom XML editor in certain versions of Microsoft Word ("Word"), Microsoft's word-processing software, infringed i4i's patent.After a seven-day trial, the jury found Microsoft liable for willful infringement.The jury rejected Microsoft's argument that the patent was invalid, and awarded $200 million in damages to i4i.The district court denied Microsoft's motions for judgment as a matter of law and motions for a new trial, finding that Microsoft had waived its right to challenge, among other things, the validity of the patent based on all but one piece of prior art and the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the jury's damage award.Although statutorily authorized to triple the jury's damages award because of Microsoft's willful infringement, the district court awarded only $40 million in additional damages.It also granted i4i's motion for a permanent injunction.This injunction, which this court stayed pending the outcome of this appeal, is narrow.Ui Ltd. v. Microsoft Corp., 343 Fed.Appx. 019(Fed.Cir.2009).It does not affect copies of Word sold or licensed before the injunction goes into effect.Thus, users who bought or licensed Word before the injunction becomes effective will still be able to use the infringing custom XML editor, and receive technical support from Microsoft.After its effective date, the injunction prohibits Microsoft from selling, offering to sell, importing, or using copies of Word with the infringing custom XML editor.Microsoft is also prohibited from instructing or assisting new customers in the custom XML editor's use.

On appeal, Microsoft challenges the jury verdict and injunction on multiple grounds.Because this case went to trial and we are in large part reviewing...