EPLAW Patent Blog

UK - Microsoft v. Motorola

Microsoft Corporation and others -v- Motorola Mobility LLC and another, Patents Court, High Court of Justice, London, The Hon Mr Justice Arnold, 21 December 2012, [2012] EWHC 3677 (Pat)

This case concerned the validity of Motorola’s European Patent (UK) No. 0 847 654, relating to the synchronisation of message information across multiple mobile devices, and its alleged infringement by Microsoft in relation to two classes of Microsoft software products, namely Exchange Active Sync (“EAS”) and Live Messenger. (An alleged infringement in relation to a third class of products, Lync, was abandoned in Motorola’s closing submissions at trial.)

In a decision handed down on 21 December 2012, the High Court held that Motorola’s EP ’654 is invalid: three of the seven claims of EP ‘654 were held to lack novelty over three items of prior art, and all claims were found to be obvious in light of the common general knowledge and/or over the pleaded prior art. The Court also held that, if the claims had been held to be valid, Microsoft would have infringed EP ’654 by its supply of its EAS and Live Messenger products save that, as a result of the acquisition of Motorola Mobility Inc. by Google, Inc. in May 2012, Microsoft could claim the benefit of a pre-existing cross-licence between Microsoft and Google (“the Google Licence”) in relation to EAS.

US - no abstract idea

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, 8 December 2010, Opinion No. 2010-1037 in Research Corporation Technologies, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Microsoft Corporation, Defendant-Appellee.

A “process” for rendering a halftone image qualifies under both the categorical language of 35 U.S.C. § 101 and 100 (b) and does not disqualify as an abstract idea. The section 101 patent-eligibility inquiry is only a threshold test and no substitute for a patentability analysis related to prior art, adequate disclosure, or the other conditions and requirements of Title 35. While no definition of "abstract" is given, it is recognised that this disqualifying characteristic should exhibit itself so manifestly as to override the broad statutory categories of eligible subject matter and the statutory context that directs primary attention on the patentability criteria of the rest of the Patent Act.

 

DE - Data Processing System, invalidity proceedings

Data Processing System, invalidity proceedings, Federal Supreme Court, Germany, 20 April 2010, Docket No. X. ZR 27/07

The Federal Supreme Court upheld the European Patent 618 540 owned by Microsoft and concerning the problem to operate programs which are solely capable to process only files with comparably short file names under operation systems which in contrast are able to operate almost indefinitely long file names.

The Federal Patent Court found the solution not to be based on an inventive step vis-à-vis the so called Rock Ridge Interchange Protocol. The Federal Supreme Court lifted this decision based on its differing interpretation of the granted patent claim. According to the Federal Supreme Court, the patent teaches to save two separate directory entries in the memory which would differ from the Rock Ridge Interchange Protocol because in the latter case both names would be contained in one directory entry.

The decision is not yet available in full text, but a corresponding press release of the Federal Supreme Court is available here.

US - Microsoft to pay $290m damages for patent infingement

Times Online reports: Microsoft to pay $290m damages for patent infingement

"Microsoft has been barred from selling its flagship word processor Word and must pay $290 million in damages for infringing a patent held by a small Canadian software company, i4i. The ruling, by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit prevents Microsoft from selling any versions of Word 2003 or Word 2007 after January 11 2010."

The CAFC affirmed an injunction issued earlier by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.

Read more in the Times Online here.
Read more in the New York Times here.

Read the US CAFC opinion here.