Appeals Court Sends Eolas Case Back For New Trial

Rolan writes "News.com is reporting that an Appeals court has partially overturned the lower court's decision in favor of Eolas. From the story: "Microsoft on Wednesday claimed a victory in a high-profile Web browser patent dispute, as an appeals court partially reversed a lower court decision that left the software giant exposed to $565 million in damages." The article does not say what part was or was not overturned." Reader shogusumi adds a link to the ruling itself (PDF), supplies a link handy for catching up with the claims at issue here, and writes "As a refresher, this is the case that claims that the functionality provided by IE through the use of embed, applet, and object tags violates a patent owned by Eolas and the University of California."

Comments

Re:Patent For Sale?

[superpulpsicle]

Why buy the patent when you are already hiring the most expensive lawyers in the country. They could help you win anything and everything in a legal system that revolves around money. Which M$ obviously has plenty of.

M$ strategy
------------
1.) Send lawyer and drag case out for 5 years till the technology doesn't matter

2.) Send lawyer and drag case out for 5 years till the opposition can't afford their lawyers anymore.

3.) Send lawyer and win

This one is a confusing

[FidelCatsro]

I am very conflicted here , I feel M$ are buying justice , however on the EOLAS issue i feel slightly conflicted . I am aware that they have said they wouldnt use the patent on any open source project , however i feel this patent is just as wrong as the other software patents.
The position i see EOLAS in is of a lose /lose for the OSS world , if they win it stands to support the idea software patents are a good thing , if they lose then well its another bouht victory for microsoft

Profiteers want patents for others not themselves.

[jbn-o]

No, you can't patent anything. Lawyers, for instance, know what a hassle the patent system is and aren't about to sick that system on themselves by allowing legal strategy patents, as a hypothetical example.

They know what a benefit it is to their business to make sure all other fields of endeavor are patentable.

If I recall correctly, some years ago in the US surgeons turned down the chance to lock up their work by allowing patents on surgical techniques.

Re:Ruling overturned the exclusion of Pei's prior

[Anonymous Coward]

For a variety of reasons I have to post AC, but I'm not here to rant. One thing that stuck me as not troubling, so much as notable, was the panel's explicit statement that the trial judge could revisit the issue of intent to deceive in the unenforceability analysis. Granted, the usual verbage about appellate courts' reluctance to disturb findings of fact was present, and also granted that perhaps I am reading more into the statement than was intended, but it struck me as the panel essentially telling the trial judge, "Look - you may have bought it at trial, but we're not buying it here. Be a good judge and reevaluate your conclusion on this issue. Let us know when you've decided that the inventor intended to deceive the examiner."

If the Viola browser anticipates, then it anticipates. If the inventions claimed in the patent are obvious over the Viola browser, then so be it. If the Fed Circuit wanted to let the judge know that everything in the unenforceability analysis was wide open for consideration, the panel could have just said so. IMHO there was no need to emphasize that aspect. Just opening the door would have been enough, especially if, as the panel seemed to indicate, the trial judge had "doubts" about Doyle's credibility on the issue.