Uniloc Usa, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.
| Decision Date | 29 September 2009 |
| Docket Number | C.A. No. 03-440 S. |
| Citation | 640 F.Supp.2d 150 |
| Parties | UNILOC USA, INC. and Uniloc Singapore Private Limited, Plaintiffs, v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Rhode Island |
Andria Coletta, Francis A. Connor, III, Taylor, Duane, Barton & Gilman, LLP, Providence, RI, Dean G. Bostock, Paul J. Cronin, Eugene A. Feher, Paul J. Hayes, Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky & Popeo, P.C., Boston, MA, for Plaintiffs.
Sheri L. Pizzi, Taylor, Duane, Barton & Gilman, LLP, Providence, RI, for Plaintiffs/Defendant.
Frank E. Scherkenbach, Kurt L. Glitzenstein, Fish & Richardson, P.C., Boston, MA, Isabella E. Fu, Microsoft Corporation Redmond, WA, Joseph V. Cavanagh, Jr., Mary C. Dunn, Blish & Cavanagh, LLP, Providence, RI, John W. Thornburgh, Fish & Richardson P.C., San Diego, CA, for Defendant.
DECISION AND ORDER
For over six years Plaintiffs Uniloc USA, Inc. and Uniloc Singapore Private Limited (Uniloc) and Defendant Microsoft Corporation (Microsoft) have battled in a high stakes patent dispute in this Court. It has taken them to the Federal Circuit once, and finally to trial where Uniloc scored a massive jury verdict (purportedly the fifth largest patent verdict in history). Before the Court are numerous post-trial motions. After careful consideration of the arguments and the evidence, and mindful of the limitations placed upon the Court in ruling upon a post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL), the Court grants JMOL of non-infringement in Microsoft's favor. And while this holding on non-infringement arguably renders moot many, if not all, of the remaining issues raised by these motions, the Court believes it is both reasonable and potentially useful in the long run, given the breadth and complexity of the issues raised, to tackle a number of other important issues raised by the parties' motions, including willfulness and invalidity.
A. The '216 Patent
The patent-in-suit is U.S. Patent No. 5,490,216 ('216 patent) entitled "System for Software Registration," issued on February 6, 1996. The inventor is Mr. Ric Richardson, an Australian citizen who founded Uniloc and made the claimed invention in Australia in or around 1991 or 1992.2 In broad terms, the patent is directed to a method of reducing unlicensed use of software through casual copying. The technology is intended to deter unauthorized copying by a purchaser of a piece of software by locking the software to a user and allowing it "to run in a use mode on a platform if and only if an appropriate licensing procedure has been followed." '216 patent, col. 2, 11. 53-55. Claim 19, the sole independent claim at issue, reads as follows:
A remote registration station incorporating remote licensee unique ID generating means, said station forming part of a registration system for licensing execution of digital data in a use mode, said digital data executable on a platform, said system including local licensee unique ID generating means, said system further including mode switching means operable on said platform which permits use of said digital data in said use mode on said platform only if a licensee unique ID generated by said local licensee unique ID generating means has matched a licensee unique ID generated by said remote licensee unique ID generating means; and wherein said remote licensee unique ID generating means comprises software executed on a platform which includes the algorithm utilized by said local licensee unique ID generating means to produce said licensee unique ID.
The relevant terms (all of which are in play at this stage) were construed as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------
registration system a system that allows digital
data or software to
run in a use mode on a
platform if and only if
an appropriate licensing
procedure has been followed
------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
licensee unique ID a unique identifier associated
with a licensee
------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
use mode a mode that allows full
use of the digital data
or software in accordance
with the license
------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
local licensee unique ID in functional terms, to
generating means generate a local licensee
unique ID
the structure to perform
this function must be a
summation algorithm or
a summer or an equivalent
------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
remote licensee unique in functional terms, to
ID generating means generate a remote licensee
unique ID
the structure to perform
this function must be a
summation algorithm or
a summer or an equivalent
------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
mode switching means in functional terms, to
permit the digital data
or software to run in a
use mode if the locally
generated licensee
unique ID matches with
the remotely generated
licensee unique ID
the structure to perform
this function must be
program code which
performs a comparison
of two numbers or a
comparator or an equivalent
of such program
code or comparator
------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
has matched a comparison between
the locally generated
licensee unique ID and
the remotely generated
licensee unique ID
shows that the two are
the same
------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
includes the algorithm includes the identical
utilized by said local licensee algorithm used by the
unique ID generating local licensee unique ID
means to produce generating means to
said licensee unique ID produce the licensee
unique ID
------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
algorithm a set of instructions that
can be followed to carry
out a particular task
------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Product Activation
The accused technology is Microsoft's patented Product Activation system (PA). This feature is contained in software products sold through retail distribution worldwide, including the accused Microsoft Office XP, Windows XP and Office 2003 products.3 According to Aiden Hughes, the writer of the original code for Microsoft in 1997 that evolved into PA, the goal of the feature was to limit the number of computers on which software was installed by enforcing the limits specified in the applicable product license agreement, or EULA (End User License Agreement). (Trial Ex. Z-2 ("This technology is geared towards reducing software piracy occurring today when end users pass along a copy of their floppies or CDs to a neighbor or install software products off of original CDs onto several machines.").)
There is no dispute as to how the PA system operates. Printed on each jewel box of a retail software product is a 25-character alphanumeric string called a Product Key (e.g., MQ9WT-3D8PY-6VF76-GMHVX-DCXFM). No two pieces of software have the same Product Key. A user types the Product Key into a computer to install a piece of software. If the Product Key is valid and the user agrees to the EULA that appears on his or her computer screen, the software is then installed but not yet activated.4 Also at this stage, a Product ID (PID) is created on the user's computer from a combination of data sources, including the typed-in Product Key, Microsoft Product Code (from "bits" on the software CD) and a random number derived from the user's computer. A hardware identifier (HWID) is also generated on the user's machine using components of that computer.
Activation of the software is only achieved when and if a user elects to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Metso Minerals, Inc. v. Powerscreen Int'l Distribution Ltd.
...a “close factual call[ ],” the Court does not find that a finding of willfulness was precluded. See Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 640 F.Supp.2d 150, 177 (D.R.I.2009). Accordingly, the renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law on the ground that no reasonable jury, properly instr......
-
Uniloc U.S. Inc. v. Microsoft Corp..
...(“'216 patent”), and, in the alternative, granting a new trial on infringement and willfulness. Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 640 F.Supp.2d 150 (D.R.I. Sept.29, 2009) (“ Uniloc II ”). Uniloc also appeals the district court's alternative grant of a new trial on damages. Microsoft cros......
-
Va. Innovation Scis., Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.
...at least, the “reckless disregard” of the possibility of infringing another's known patent. Id.; see Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 640 F.Supp.2d 150, 176–77 (D.R.I.2009)aff'd in part, rev'd in part, 632 F.3d 1292 (Fed.Cir.2011) (characterizing willful infringement as “objectively rec......
-
Uniloc USA. Inc v. Microsoft Corp., 2010-1035
...("'216 patent"), and, in the alternative, granting a new trial on infringement and willfulness. Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 640 F. Supp. 2d 150 (D.R.I. Sept. 29, 2009) ("Uniloc II"). Uniloc also appeals the district court's alternative grant of a new trial on damages. Microsoft cro......
-
A New Frontier in Patent Bar Ethics?
...16. See Cybermedia, Inc. History , in 25 International Directory of Company Histories (1999). 17. Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 640 F. Supp. 2d 150, 173 (D.R.I. 2009). 18. Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 632 F.3d 1292, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2011). 19. See, e.g. , Joe Mullin, How One P......
-
An Interview with Li-Hsien (Lily) Rin-Laures
...16. See Cybermedia, Inc. History , in 25 International Directory of Company Histories (1999). 17. Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 640 F. Supp. 2d 150, 173 (D.R.I. 2009). 18. Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 632 F.3d 1292, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2011). 19. See, e.g. , Joe Mullin, How One P......
-
Patenting Nature
...16. See Cybermedia, Inc. History , in 25 International Directory of Company Histories (1999). 17. Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 640 F. Supp. 2d 150, 173 (D.R.I. 2009). 18. Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 632 F.3d 1292, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2011). 19. See, e.g. , Joe Mullin, How One P......
-
Pulling Back the Curtain on Complex Funding of Patent Assertion Entities
...16. See Cybermedia, Inc. History , in 25 International Directory of Company Histories (1999). 17. Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 640 F. Supp. 2d 150, 173 (D.R.I. 2009). 18. Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 632 F.3d 1292, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2011). 19. See, e.g. , Joe Mullin, How One P......