Microsoft was one of the parties in a number of important information technology cases over the past year. On June 9, 2011, the Supreme Court continued its seemingly annual review of Federal Circuit patent law in deciding the i4i case. There the Court affirmed the Federal Circuit’s “clear-and-convincing” standard of proof required for challenges to the validity of a patent. In the i4i case, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment of willful infringement and its $240 million damages award. i4i had alleged that certain versions of Microsoft Word produced since 2003 contained an infringing custom XML editor. Lowering the standard to a preponderance of evidence—as Microsoft requested—would have decreased the strength of a patent owner’s case in litigation.
In another case involving Microsoft, the Federal Circuit started building on last year’s Bilski case in which the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed a Federal Circuit ruling that Bilski’s business method was not patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101, but rejected the Federal Circuit’s reasoning. In the Research Corporation case, the Federal Circuit held that the digital imaging process claims at issue were patentable subject matter because they represent “functional and palpable applications in the field of computer technology” and were not a manifestly abstract idea.
In yet another case involving Microsoft, the Federal Circuit continued to force cases out of patentee-friendly U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. In that case, a patent owner’s attempt to manipulate the venue choice by incorporating an affiliate office in Tyler, Texas, without employees was rejected.
While remaining engaged with patent issues, the U.S. Supreme Court declined review of the Harper case, a case in which Whitney Harper was accused of infringing copyrights by making unauthorized copies through online downloading. Harper was denied the opportunity to pursue an innocent infringer defense. In a dissent from the Court’s denial of certiorari, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. addressed the issue of whether consumers are actually notified of the copyright status of computer files, which are usually not accompanied by credits and other information.
Also, there seems to be a trend for federal judges to refuse to impose large damages awards on individual file sharers, even if such awards are supported by federal statute. For example, in the Tenenbaum case, the district court ruled that a jury’s $675,000 statutory damages award was unconstitutionally excessive because it was far greater than necessary to serve the government’s legitimate interest in compensating copyright owners and deterring infringement.
Please see full chapter on Patents below for more information.
Firefox recommends the PDF Plugin for Mac OS X for viewing PDF documents in your browser.
We can also show you Legal Updates using the Google Viewer; however, you will need to be logged into Google Docs to view them.
Please choose one of the above to proceed!
LOADING PDF: If there are any problems, click here to download the file.