Microsoft Seeks JMOL in i4i Patent Case
From Bloomberg.com
"[T]he world’s largest software maker asked a U.S. judge to throw out a $200 million verdict after a jury found that the company’s Word products violated a patented way to process electronic documents.
Microsoft is also seeking a ruling that it didn’t use a patent owned by closely held i4i LP. U.S. Judge Leonard Davis in Tyler, Texas, didn’t rule on the motion today.
'There is no evidence that Microsoft looked at the patent or knew about the content of the patent,' Matthew Powers, a Microsoft attorney, told Davis.
Microsoft yesterday asked a judge in Providence, Rhode Island, to throw out a separate $388 million verdict in favor of a Singapore company that accused Microsoft of infringing a patented invention used to deter software piracy. No ruling was made and the hearing is expected to continue next week.
The Tyler jury’s May verdict said Microsoft’s infringement was willful, allowing i4i to seek to have award increased. An attorney for i4i suggested $25 million would be a reasonable punishment for willfulness.
'The evidence amply supports the jury’s finding of willfulness,' said Douglas Cawley, an attorney representing i4i, told the court today. 'Microsoft knew of the patent, and chose to ignore it.'
Four of the top 10 biggest patent verdicts in U.S. history have gone against Microsoft, totaling more than $2.78 billion. The total includes a February 2007 verdict where the Redmond, Washington-based company was told to pay $1.5 billion to Alcatel-Lucent. The award was later thrown out."
"[T]he world’s largest software maker asked a U.S. judge to throw out a $200 million verdict after a jury found that the company’s Word products violated a patented way to process electronic documents.
Microsoft is also seeking a ruling that it didn’t use a patent owned by closely held i4i LP. U.S. Judge Leonard Davis in Tyler, Texas, didn’t rule on the motion today.
'There is no evidence that Microsoft looked at the patent or knew about the content of the patent,' Matthew Powers, a Microsoft attorney, told Davis.
Microsoft yesterday asked a judge in Providence, Rhode Island, to throw out a separate $388 million verdict in favor of a Singapore company that accused Microsoft of infringing a patented invention used to deter software piracy. No ruling was made and the hearing is expected to continue next week.
The Tyler jury’s May verdict said Microsoft’s infringement was willful, allowing i4i to seek to have award increased. An attorney for i4i suggested $25 million would be a reasonable punishment for willfulness.
'The evidence amply supports the jury’s finding of willfulness,' said Douglas Cawley, an attorney representing i4i, told the court today. 'Microsoft knew of the patent, and chose to ignore it.'
Four of the top 10 biggest patent verdicts in U.S. history have gone against Microsoft, totaling more than $2.78 billion. The total includes a February 2007 verdict where the Redmond, Washington-based company was told to pay $1.5 billion to Alcatel-Lucent. The award was later thrown out."
posted by Mark P. Walters @ 9:50 AM
1 Comments:
At July 21, 2009 at 10:30 AM ,
Hallihan IP Partners, LLC said...
As a Chicago patent attorney who found myself defending a patent infringement action in front of Judge Leonard Davis in the Eastern District of Texas (Tyler), I found him to be a very thoughtful. Although the Eastern District has a reputation as being plaintiff friendly in patent lawsuits, I was able to convince Judge Davis of a claim construction that caused the plaintiffs to file a motion to dismiss their case. Interestingly enough, on one issue he split the babby in the exact manner that I predicted was possible (but which did not make a difference for the client). If Microsoft has a good argument for JMOL, they are lucky to have Judge Davis.
I sometimes think that maybe Texas must just likes (or at least tolerates) attorneys from Chicago. I also represented another defendant out in the Eastern District (Judge Clark out of Lufkin, but being held out of Beaumont) where we obtained a summary judgment that 7 claims were anticipated by the prior art.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home