Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Limited Partnership
| Docket Number | 10-290 |
| Decision Date | 09 June 2011 |
-
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
View this document and try vLex for 7 days - TRY VLEX
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 7-day Trial
1337 cases
-
Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.
...probable that the claim is invalid.SourceAdapted from N.D. Cal. Model Patent Jury Instr. B.4.1.AuthoritiesMicrosoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. P'ship, 131 S. Ct. 2238, 2242, 2251 (2011); Buildex, Inc. v. Kason Indus., Inc., 849 F.2d 1461, 1463 (Fed. Cir. 1988); Hybritech, Inc. v. Monoclonal Antibodi......
-
Ostrander v. Williams (In re Williams)
...(2d Cir. 1988). 25. See S. REP. No. 100-293, at 11 (1988), reprinted in 1988 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5564, 5570. 26. E.g., Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. P'ship, 131 S.Ct. 2238, 2248 (2011) (quoting Duncan v. Walker, 533 U.S. 167, 174 (2001)). 27. See also infra note 35. 28. In full, 18 U.S.C. § 6001(4) ......
-
Viva Healthcare Packaging USA Inc. v. CTL Packaging USA Inc.
...the party seeking to invalidate a patent to prove invalidity by clear and convincing evidence. Microsoft Corp. v. I4I Ltd. P'ship, 564 U.S. 91, 95, 131 S.Ct. 2238, 180 L.Ed.2d 131, (2011). This standard applies at the summary judgment stage. Invitrogen Corp. v. Biocrest Mfg., L.P., 424 F.3d......
-
In re Depomed Patent Litig.
...has addressed the impact of the prosecution history on the standards and burdens of proving invalidity. See generally Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. P'ship, 564 U.S. 91 (2011). In i4i, the Court affirmed that the "heavy burden of persuasion" borne by a patent challenger is unaltered by conside......
Get Started for Free
16 firm's commentaries
-
Patent Law And The Supreme Court: Certiorari Petitions Denied
...question of patent validity is one of law" that depends on several "basic factual inquiries." In Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. P'ship, 131 S. Ct. 2238 (2011), three Justices stressed the importance of "separating [the] factual and legal aspects of an invalidity claim." Id. at 2253 (Breyer, J.......
-
The Supreme Court Review of the Federal Circuit: Recent Decisions with Varying Impact
...Stanford Junior University v. Roche Molecular Systems, Inc., 563 U.S. ____, 131 S. Ct. 2188 (2011). 3. Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Limited Partnership, 564 U.S. ____, 131 S. Ct. 2238 (2011). 4. Global-Tech, 563 U.S. at ____, 131 S. Ct. at 2064. 5. Id. 6. Id. 7. Id. 8. Id. at ____ , 131 S. Ct. at......
-
10 Reasons Every Defendant in Patent Litigation Should Consider Inter Partes Review
...court. In district court, a defendant must prove invalidity by clear and convincing evidence. See Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Partnership, 131 S. Ct. 2238, 2242 (2011). In contrast, at the PTAB, the petitioner must prove unpatentability by a mere "preponderance of the evidence" standard. See 35 ......
-
Patent Law And The Supreme Court: Certiorari Petitions Pending (February 2014)
...Cir. 2010) (en banc). The accused infringer must prove invalidity by clear and convincing evidence. Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. P'ship, 131 S. Ct. 2238 (2011). After a properly instructed jury found the claims of the asserted patent in this case adequately described and not invalid, a divid......
Get Started for Free
40 books & journal articles
-
Chapter 12-2 The Summary Judgment Rule Amendment Effective May 1, 2021
...12, 2016).[40] See Grogan v. Garner, 498 U.S. 279, 286, 111 S. Ct. 654, 112 L. Ed. 2d 755 (1991).[41] Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. P'ship, 564 U.S. 91, 100 n.4, 131 S. Ct. 2238, 2245 (2011) (citation omitted).[42] Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. P'ship, 564 U.S. 91, 100 n.4, 131 S. Ct. 2238, 224......
-
Table of cases
...Jewelry, 795 F. Supp. 639 (S.D.N.Y. 1992), 202, 459 Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp., 550 U.S. 437 (2007), 5 Microsoft Corp. v. i4i L.P., 131 S. Ct. 2238 (2011), 6 Microsoft Corp. v. Motorola, Inc., 854 F. Supp. 2d 993 (W.D. Wash. 2012), aff’d , ___ F.3d ___, 2015 WL 4568613 (9th Cir. 2015), 1......
-
Responding to the Complaint
...Austl. Pty Ltd. v. Int’l Game Tech., 543 F.3d 657, 661–62 (Fed. Cir. 2008). 184. Id. at 661–63. 185. Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. P’ship, 131 S. Ct. 2238, 2242 (2011); 35 U.S.C. § 282. 186. In re Seagate Tech., LLC, 497 F.3d 1360, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (en banc) (stating that “patent infring......
-
Chapter §17.02 Inducing Infringement Under §271(b)
...(Scalia, J., dissenting) (citations omitted).[198] Commil III, 135 S. Ct. at 1929 (citing Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. Partnership, 131 S. Ct. 2238, 2245–2247 (2011)).[199] Commil III, 135 S. Ct. at 1929 (quoting 6A Chisum on Patents §19.02 (2015)).[200] Commil III, 135 S. Ct. at 1929 (empha......
Get Started for Free