141 Ltd. P'ship And v. Microsoft Corp., 2009-1504.
Decision Date | 10 March 2010 |
Docket Number | No. 2009-1504.,2009-1504. |
Parties | 141 LIMITED PARTNERSHIP and Infrastructures for Information Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit |
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. Carter McKool 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 curiae Dell 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 curiae Washington Legal Foundation, of Washington, DC. With him on the brief was Daniel J. Popeo.
Before SCHALL, PROST, and MOORE, Circuit Judges.
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...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Verinata Health, Inc. v. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc.
...Straus disclosed all elements of claim 1 "arranged or combined in the same way as in the claim."4 See i4i Ltd. P'ship v. Microsoft Corp. , 598 F.3d 831, 848 (Fed. Cir. 2010), aff'd , 564 U.S. 91, 131 S.Ct. 2238, 180 L.Ed.2d 131 (2011) (denying defendant's motion for judgment as a matter of ......
-
Presidio Components Inc. v. American Technical Ceramics Corp..
...is an affirmative defense, which the defendant must demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence. i4i Ltd. Partnership v. Microsoft Corp., 598 F.3d 831, 846-47 (Fed.Cir.2010) (citations omitted). In an anticipation analysis, what a prior art reference discloses is a factual determination th......
-
BTG Int'l Ltd. v. Amneal Pharm. LLC
...that party sells, or offers to sell, a material or apparatus for use in practicing a patented process." i4i Ltd. P'ship v. Microsoft Corp. , 598 F.3d 831, 850-51 (Fed. Cir. 2010). To establish contributory infringement under this subsection, a patent owner must prove the following: "1) that......
-
ZUP, LLC v. Nash Mfg., Inc., Civil Action No. 3:16–CV–125–HEH
...the party) ‘to be especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of such patent.’ " i4i Ltd. Partnership v. Microsoft Corp. , 598 F.3d 831, 851–52 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 271(c) )."[A] substantial non-infringing use is any use that is 'not unusual, far-fetche......
-
The 'Read' 'Enhanced Damages' Standard Must Be Applied Separately From The 'Seagate' 'Willful Infringement' Standard
...of whether damages should be enhanced is whether there was adequate investigation of patent rights. i4i Ltd. P'ship v. Microsoft Corp., 598 F.3d 831, 859 (Fed. Cir. 2010), cert. granted on other grounds (2010). Here, the district court applied the Seagate willful infringement standard when ......
-
Supreme Court Unanimously Reaffirms Clear And Convincing Evidence Standard For Patent Invalidity
...670 F. Supp. 2d 568 (E.D. Tex. 2009). Microsoft appealed. See http://bit.ly/fxvbQf. A three-judge panel of the Federal Circuit affirmed. 598 F.3d 831 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (superseding prior opinion at 589 F.3d 1246 (Fed. Cir. 2009)). See Foley's Legal News Alert: Intellectual Property from Dece......
-
Damage Award of $5 Million Upheld Where Plaintiff Submitted Expert Testimony of Running Royalty Rate and Jury Was Not Required to Adopt Either of the Parties Royalty Calculations
...Cir. 1995); see also Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. 632 F.3d 1292, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citing i4i Ltd. P'ship v. Microsoft Corp., 598 F.3d 831, 856 (Fed. Cir. 2010)) ('it is decidedly the jury's role to evaluate the weight to be given to the testimony of dueling qualified experts').......
-
An Exercise In Restraint: Seeking And Combatting Injunctive Relief
...the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's finding of the inadequacies of remedies at law. i4i Ltd. P'ship v. Microsoft Corp., 598 F.3d 831, 862 (Fed. Cir. 2010), aff'd, 564 U.S. 91 It specifically noted that the "district court found no evidence that i4i had previously licensed the ......
-
Chapter §20.05 Enhanced Damages and Willful Infringement
...Standard: Objective Recklessness").[644] 136 S. Ct. 1923 (2016).[645] Halo, 136 S. Ct. at 1932.[646] i4i Ltd. P'ship v. Microsoft Corp., 598 F.3d 831, 858 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (citing In re Seagate Technology, LLC., 497 F.3d 1360, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (en banc)).[647] WBIP, LLC v. Kohler Co., ......
-
Chapter §20.02 Injunctions
...may not serve the public interest").[35] eBay, 547 U.S. at 394.[36] eBay, 547 U.S. at 394.[37] i4i Ltd. P'ship v. Microsoft Corp., 598 F.3d 831, 861 (Fed. Cir. 2010).[38] i4i, 598 F.3d at 861.[39] Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 801 F.3d 1352, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (Apple IV") (stating th......
-
Willful Patent Infringement and Enhanced Damages After In Re Seagate: An Empirical Study
...in enhanced damages for willful infringement), aff’d as modified , 589 F.3d 1246 (Fed. Cir. 2009), opinion withdrawn and superseded by 598 F.3d 831 (Fed. Cir. 2010), aff’d on other grounds , 131 S. Ct. 2238 (2011); Final Judgment at 2–3, DataTreasury Corp. v. Wells Fargo & Co., No. 2:06-CV-......
-
Secondary considerations: a structured framework for patent analysis.
...is persuasive evidence of patentability where all but one reference was cited by examiner). (126) i4i Ltd. P'ship v. Microsoft Corp., 598 F.3d 831 (Fed. Cir. 2010), cert. granted, 131 S. Ct. 647 (Nov. 29, (127) United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39 (1966). (128) Id. at 52 (other secondary con......