120 likes | 227 Vues
Patent Cases. MM 350 Intellectual Property Law and New Media. BILSKI ET AL. v . KAPPOS, No. 08–964. Argued November 9, 2009—Decided June 28, 2010. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-964.pdf Business method patent on a method of hedging risk in commodities trading
E N D
Patent Cases MM 350 Intellectual Property Law and New Media
BILSKI ET AL. v. KAPPOS, No. 08–964. Argued November 9, 2009—Decided June 28, 2010 • http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-964.pdf • Business method patent on a method of hedging risk in commodities trading • By only 5-4, the USSC upholds the validity of business methods patents and denies one to Bilski
Majority Opinion: A claimed process is patent eligible if: • (1) it is tied to a particular machine or apparatus, or • (2) it transforms a particular article into a different state or thing. • The patent at issue failed the test and therefore was not patent eligible.
Tivo v. Echostar (Fed. Cir. 2008) • Tivo sues Echostar for infringing the ‘389 patent. • Hardware and software claims relating to DVR’s • Jury verdict in favor of Tivo • $74 million!!! • Lost profits and reasonable royalties • Permanent injunction
Tivo v. Echostar (Fed. Cir. 2008) • Echostar appeals to Federal Circuit: • Reverses and remands on hardware claims • Affirms software claims • Affirms damages award • Affirms permanent injunction – which had been stayed pending appeal
Tivo v. Echostar • 2008: USSC refused the case. • 2009: trial judge fined Tivo an additional 103 million, plus interest.
Tivo-more • 2009: Tivo wins another 200M. against Dish Network—roughly, same claims • 2009: Tivo sues AT&T . . . .BUT • Microsoft sues Tivo (on two patents) • 2009: Tivo sues Verizon….. BUT - Motorola, who supplied the sets to Verizon, sues TIVO for infringement
Microsoft v. TomTom2:09-cv-00247 (W. Dist. Wash.) • Patent No.:US 6,175,789 Bl • Date of Patent: *Jan.16,2001 • VEHICLE COMPUTER SYSTEM WITH OPEN PLATFORM ARCHITECTURE • Inventors: Richard D. Beckert, Lake Stevens; • Mark M. Moeller, Bellingtham; • William S. Wong, Redmond, all of WA (US) • Assignee: Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA • (US) • Filed: Sep. 10, 1999
Microsoft v. TomTom2:09-cv-00247 (W. Dist. Wash.) ABSTRACT A vehicle computer system has a housing sized to be mounted in a vehicle dashboard or other appropriate location. A computer is mounted within the housing and executes an open platform, multi-tasking operating system. The computer runs multiple applications on the operating system, including both vehicle-related applications (e.g., vehicle security application, vehicle diagnostics application, communications application, etc.) and non-vehicle-related applications (e.g., entertainment application, word processing, etc.). The applications may be supplied by the vehicle manufacturer and/or by the vehicle user.
Microsoft v. TomTom2:09-cv-00247 (W. Dist. Wash.) • Microsoft alleged: • TomTom's navigation products, which use the open source Linux kernel, infringe on a handful of Microsoft's patents. • Two of the patents cited by Microsoft cover legacy compatibility features in Microsoft's FAT filesystem, support for which is implemented in Linux. • TomTom responds: • Countersues Microsoft for infringing its patents for various automobile navigation systems.
Microsoft v. TomTom2:09-cv-00247 (W. Dist. Wash.) • Case filed on 2/25/09 • Case voluntarily dismissed on 4/2/09 • Why?
MICROSOFT CORP. v. I4I LIMITED PARTNERSHIP ET AL.CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT • Over XML used in WORD • No. 10–290. Argued April 18, 2011—Decided June 9, 2011 • Microsoft lost at the trial level as well as multiple appeals. • 200M judgment, and some fines for calling i41 a patent troll during the case (had enjoined them from selling WORD for a short time) • Microsoft attempted to get the USSC to lower the standard for challenging a patent in cases in which the particular aspect within the patent had not been challenged as prior art at the time of the filing. • Wanted “preponderance of evidence” as opposed to “clear and convincing evidence” • USSC said “no thanks, the high standard is just fine