Supreme Court To Hear Microsoft-i4i Case Monday

CWmike writes "Patent attorneys and inventors of all types are closely watching a Microsoft case that the US Supreme Court will start to consider on Monday. The case, which centers on a technology patent assigned to i4i that almost forced Microsoft to stop selling its flagship Word software, could have broad implications in the way patents are awarded and upheld, experts said. Currently, when a patent holder accuses someone of infringing a patent, the burden is on the infringer to prove with 'clear and convincing evidence' that the patent is invalid. In hearing this case, the Supreme Court could decide to lower that standard of proof, she said."

Comments

Too big to fail doctrine

[Compaqt]

> Currently, when a patent holder accuses someone of infringing a patent, the burden is on the infringer to prove with 'clear and convincing evidence' that the patent is invalid. In hearing this case, the Supreme Court could decide to lower that standard of proof, she said."

AKA, the court usually finds a way to shoehorn something that's highly important to the status quo into some or another legal theory.

Re:Too big to fail doctrine

[mabhatter654]

To be blunt, I don't even know why this got to the Supreme Court. There's little "constitutional" merit to the case. Microsoft is used to companies they can buy our bully.. in this case i4i sold the product TO the patent office so the patent office was in a unique position to know much more about the invention than other ones. Previously, the Supreme Court has said that the Patent Office has the final say... lower Appeals courts have backed that up. This is consistent with the prior ruling on Copyright (from the same clause in the Constitution) that Congress is the one that sets those rules. If you don't like them, talk to Congress.

Back on the topic of Microsoft, they find themselves in the spot that Microsoft has NOTHING these guys want other than to watch Microsoft STOP SELLING something. So for all the games Microsoft plays, they've found themselves at the wrong end of the stick they've enjoyed berating "piracy" for decades. The courts are getting loath to keep allowing endless appeals in these patent cases... many of the lower courts and even other Supreme Court cases point to a trend that the courts want to wash their hands and tell folks to get Congress to fix the rules... also, Bush put into place a lot of "unitary executive" believers, and the Patent Office is an "Executive" department... so the current court is leaning highly toward "em's the Apples" and that's the Law as it stands.

So...

[bmo]

If Microsoft wins this case, its purported 235 patents that Linux supposedly infringes upon (they have yet to list them after all these years because they are likely piss-weak) are further weakened?

I'm all for it.

Go Microsoft!

--
BMO

Re:So...

[Grond]

If Microsoft wins this case, its purported 235 patents that Linux supposedly infringes upon (they have yet to list them after all these years because they are likely piss-weak) are further weakened?

Microsoft is a defendant in about 50 patent infringement suits at any given time. They are the target of far, far more patent infringement suits than they file. It's in their strategic interest to make it somewhat easier to invalidate patents.

This case also demonstrates the lengths to which Microsoft is willing to go to defend an infringement case. There was a full jury trial, a reexamination at the Patent Office, a (denied) request for a second reexamination, an appeal of the injunction to the Federal Circuit, an appeal of the case itself to the Federal Circuit, and now this appeal to the Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court agrees with Microsoft, the case will go back to the trial court for a new trial, with, potentially, another round of appeals if Microsoft loses again.

Re:So...

[gnasher719]

This case also demonstrates the lengths to which Microsoft is willing to go to defend an infringement case. There was a full jury trial, a reexamination at the Patent Office, a (denied) request for a second reexamination, an appeal of the injunction to the Federal Circuit, an appeal of the case itself to the Federal Circuit, and now this appeal to the Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court agrees with Microsoft, the case will go back to the trial court for a new trial, with, potentially, another round of appeals if Microsoft loses again.

If you have been fined $400 million or so, you can invest quite a few million into trying to reduce that number.

The computerworld article is terrible

[Anonymous Coward]

I am a patent attorney. I write and prosecute patents. I don't do litigation. Nevertheless, I've been keeping an eye on the i4i case. The Computerworld article grossly oversimplifies the issues in this case. There are different types of prior art that can be used to invalidate a patent. The prior art at issue in the i4i case is not a printed publication or any type of publicly-available reference the Examiner could have reasonably been expected to find. The prior art at issue is prior art known only to the inventor.

While the Supreme Court could lower the standard across the board for all types of prior art, it's more likely the Court will lower the standard only for prior art not available to the Examiner through printed publications or other publicly-available sources.

For an excellent analysis, see this blog post: http://www.reexamlink.com/category/patent-litigation/
(You have to scroll down to get to the i4i blog entries)

Re:It's just word!!

[r.stallman]

When I need an office program it's time for Open Office or Libre Office, both of which not only out perform Word but do a better job as a word processor.

I'm not sure if you're being serious, but recently I used Office to complete my PhD thesis in physics and it was amazing. I wrote a quick VBA in Excel to directly interface to my cold fusion power output detectors (resistance lowered when immersed to indicate increased temperature) and rather than have to use complex formulae a wizard suggested the best one automatically! The charts looked super smooth and slick, not like Open Office where frankly the results looked quite random.

But back onto word processors, Word is amazing too. I'd pretty much only just started writing the introduction when "It appears you are writing a thesis, would you like help?" appeared. After I clicked yes for every term I entered it automatically fetched Wikipedia results and referenced them, I was done in no time! Now that I'm a Doctor I'm also using MS Flight Simulator to learn to fly as soon I'll be able to afford my own private jet. Thanks again Microsoft!

Re:Wrong way round, surely

[Gadget_Guy]

From the article (above) "when a patent holder accuses someone of infringing a patent, the burden is on the infringer to prove with 'clear and convincing evidence' that the patent is invalid". Surely the burden must be on the patent holder to prove that their patent has been infringed.

You are mixing up two separate arguments:

1. The patent holder has to show that the patent was infringed. If they can't do this, then it is game over.
2. If they can show infringement, then the defendant can argue that the patent should not exist in the first place due to being too obvious, or having prior art etc.

Changing the rules for the second part does not affect the first part.

Re:It's just word!!

[mabhatter654]

various versions of MICROSOFT Word don't have good formatting between them... how could anybody ELSE do better when the format's own creators can't seem to get it right.