Software patents Microsoft cases where the accused was in order to cool down the infringing a patent on XML and forced to suspend the sale of the Word and Office when it US Supreme Court Monday afternoon UK time and could have a far-reaching impact on future litigation.
Microsoft has brought the matter to the Supreme Court, where it asks the Court to lower the standards of proof required for challenges to the validity of a duly issued patent. The company is seeking to overturn a patent have at the moment to be able to show "clear and convincing" evidence; Microsoft wants to move, for the benefit of tilts the complainant that an "overweight" of evidence.
If Microsoft WINS, it could weaken the use of software patents in a number of cases. Loudon Owen, Chairman of i4i, saying it is "patent law at a crossroads" and that "the consequences will affect every consumer in each establishment at each level".
Microsoft contends that it is too difficult to pass on the software patent granted in error by the US Patent Office. "Innovation is one of the major drivers, one of the bright spots in our economy," says Andy Culbert, Associate General Counsel for Microsoft. "If you have a really bad patent should not have been issued, what happens? It keeps innovation. "
i4i says that weaken the standard evidence to overturn the patents would deter companies and inventors from being innovative. Currently ends about half of patents with the patent litigation will be ruled invalid. If Microsoft (which itself owns a large number of patents, including software patents) prevails, that proportion will rise.
By i4i, Owen argues: "what it really means for consumers is there will be much less investment in medicines in biotechnology, in green tech … because without patents, there is no security, and system will not work."
Speech to the Seattle PI blog, Henry Sneath, Pittsburgh-based patents lawyer wondered why and when Microsoft had been so keen to "overweight" rather than "clear and convincing" standard of proof:
"I have never heard of any large cry to change the default, and I do not remember anything written about it," said Sneath, who spoke as an officer of DRI, the nation's largest organization of civil litigation lawyers. "So you have to wonder why it is suddenly a big deal. Now, Microsoft has made a stink about it? It is almost like the manufactured problem. "
Dispute between Microsoft i4i and is lengthy. i4i is a Canadian software company which told the guardian in 2010, the aim is to become "[database company] Oracle unstructured data", and rejected claims it was involved in "patent trolling vessels"-enforce patents that it happens to keep but the user does not otherwise-in suing Microsoft.
In March 2007 the defendant i4i Microsoft for intentional infringement of its patent on the use of XML (Extensible Markup Language superset of markup languages such as the Web's HTML) in Word to custom applications. This led to a ban on the sale in the us of the Word 2003 version of Microsoft program considered to be directly violates. (Later versions did not.)
The central element in i4i XML product is that it takes large amounts of unstructured data, and then wraps in XML to make it more usable and useful. Among its users the US Patent Office, US Air Force and the number of pharmaceutical companies, including Bayer and Novo Nordisk.
i4i accused Microsoft of "cool" violates the patent after the two companies had had conversations in 2000-2001 about XML and custom XML. "" We had extensive contacts with Microsoft in the course of several years on the ability to interact, "Owen told me in January 2010. Soon after Microsoft began talking about XML schemas in future versions of Word, which was then delivered in Word 2003-processing activity i4i's activity, the company said.
On 20 May 2009, a jury found i4i's patent has been violated and will Microsoft was ordered to pay damages to i4i. 11 August 2009, it was a final judgment against Microsoft issued, included a grant of more than $ 290 m damages for i4i (including enhanced damages, interest and record-verdict damage) and a permanent injunction, which entered into force on 11 January, 2010.
Microsoft unsuccessfully appealed to the Federal Circuit Court of appeals at the end of 2009, and also has unsuccessfully sought a treatment at the beginning of 2010. This was the largest patent infringement judgment ever be upheld by the Federal Circuit.
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court has withdrawn from the case, which will be heard only of eight judges, which means that Microsoft has to get 5 8 back his case, rather than 5 9.
24 Amicus briefs support position-in total submitted to i4i, including one of the u.s. Government.
No comments:
Post a Comment