Patent Law Practice Center

The Supreme Court Argument in Microsoft v. i4i: Will the Court Lower the Burden for Proving Patent Invalidity in Infringement Litigation?

The much anticipated oral arguments in Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. took place at the Supreme Court yesterday, April 18, 2011.  The question on all of our minds is whether the Supreme Court will change the burden of proof for parties alleging patent invalidity in infringement litigation from a clear and convincing standard to a preponderance of the evidence standard?   Did yesterday’s proceedings bring us one step closer to the answer?  Jeanne Gills, Partner at Foley & Lardner and Practice Center Contributor, sent in this alert she wrote with her colleagues wherein they highlight the key points from the oral argument and provide some insight as to what the outcome of this important case may be.

For nearly three decades, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has required litigants defending a claim of patent infringement to prove invalidity by clear and convincing evidence. On April 18, 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. P’ship, No. 10-290, the first case to squarely address whether the presumption of validity codified in the 1952 Patent Act mandates a heightened burden of proof for defendants challenging validity in a patent infringement action, e.g., where the prior art was never considered by USPTO. Microsoft contends that the burden should be no greater than a preponderance of the evidence when the USPTO did not consider the most relevant prior art during patent examination. i4i is one of the most significant patent cases in years, and one of the most significant business cases of the Court’s term. Beyond reducing the burden on accused infringers to prove invalidity in patent litigation, a lowering of the standard of proof could widely impact the value of patents. (more…)

Toshiba Attack On Two Rovi V-Chip Patents Among Reexamination Requests Filed Week Of 3/7/11

Here is the latest installment of Reexamination Requests from Scott Daniels, of Reexamination Alert and Practice Center Contributor….

Late last year, Rovi sued Toshiba, alleging that it infringes two patents covering V-Chip technology, U.S. Patent Nos. 6,305,016 and 6,701,523.  Toshiba has now replied to that allegation by requesting reexamination of both Rovi patents (see ex parte Request Nos. (16) & (17)).

The winner for the most reexaminations requested was TiVo who filed requests against seven Microsoft TV programming patents (see ex parteRequest Nos. (3) to (9)).

Finally, Xilinx’s assault on Intellectual Venture patents continued last week with requests filed against IV’s U.S. Patent Nos. 6,993,669 and 6,408,415 (see inter partes Request No. (3) & ex parte Request No. (31)). (more…)

Acer & Microsoft Attacks On Mediostream Video Recording Patent Among Reexamination Requests Filed Week Of January 31, 2011

Here is the latest installment of Reexamination Requests from Scott Daniels, of Reexamination Alert and Practice Center Contributor….

On January 7, 2011, Apple requested reexamination of MedioStream’s U.S. Patent No. 7,843,508 covering a way of recording video data directly onto disks.  Now, both Acer and Microsoft have filed their own requests for reexamination of the ‘508 patent (inter partes Request Nos. (2) & (5)).  Each of these new requestors has been accused by MedioStream of infringing the ‘508 patent.  These requests continue a trend among the huge electronic companies, especially Apple, of using reexamination to reply to infringement allegations.

As an update to our posts of June 30 & November 9, 2010 and January 19, 2011 – regarding inter partes reexamination requests filed by Whirlpool against four LG refrigerator patents – Judge Garrett Brown, in a parallel infringement action between the parties in the District Court of New Jersey, has denied Whirlpool’s motion to stay the case pending completion of the reexamination proceedings.  Judge Brown explained that inter partes reexaminations “could take more than five years if the parties fully exhaust their appeal rights” and that delay could cause LG irreparable loss because the parties are direct competitors: “[t]he goodwill lost during the reexamination proceedings could be difficult to measure and difficult to compensate fully with money damages after trial.” (more…)

Top 10 Issues for Patent Litigators in 2011

Written by Brandon Baum (Partner at Mayer Brown and Practice Center Contributor).

The end of the year is the time for top 10 lists.  Here, in no particular order, are my top 10 issues for patent litigators in 2011.

10.  Microsoft Corp v. i4i Ltd. Partnership., and the clear and convincing evidence standard where the defendant relies on uncited art.  Will the Supreme Court decide that a lesser burden of proof is required to show invalidity when art was never considered by the USPTO?  If so, this will profoundly change both litigation and prosecution practice.  My favorite possible implication – what presumption applies to a mongrel 103(a) combination of cited and uncited art?  And will the PTO experience a data dump of prior art, if Microsoft prevails?

9.  Global-Tech Appliances v. SEB S.A., and the standard for proving the mental state required for induced infringement.  Whatever language the Supreme Court uses to describe the mental state required to show inducement will send everyone scrambling to prove or disprove the existence of that mental state. (more…)

US Supreme Court Accepts Microsoft Appeal in i4i Case

The following was sent in by Gene Quinn, of IPWatchdog and Practice Center Contributor.

Yesterday, the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari in Microsoft Corporation v. i4i Limited Partnership, with Chief Justice John Roberts taking no part in the decision or petition. The Supreme Court did not request the views of the Solicitor General, choosing rather to accept the matter with no input from the United States government.  The decision to grant cert. comes only days after the United States Patent and Trademark Office refused to grant reexamination of the patent in question.

Microsoft had filed an ex parte reexamination request on the patent in question, US Patent No. 5,787,449. The ‘449 patent exited reexamination unchanged. Microsoft then filed a second ex parte reexamination request, and it is this second request that was denied by the Patent Office on Wednesday, November 24, 2010. The denial of this second request means that the Patent Office did not believe there to be a substantial new question of patentability. (more…)