Supreme Court To Hear Microsoft-i4i Case Monday 105
Posted
by
timothy
from the regulators-like-being-regulators dept.
from the regulators-like-being-regulators dept.
CWmike writes "Patent attorneys and inventors of all types are closely watching a Microsoft case that the US Supreme Court will start to consider on Monday. The case, which centers on a technology patent assigned to i4i that almost forced Microsoft to stop selling its flagship Word software, could have broad implications in the way patents are awarded and upheld, experts said. Currently, when a patent holder accuses someone of infringing a patent, the burden is on the infringer to prove with 'clear and convincing evidence' that the patent is invalid. In hearing this case, the Supreme Court could decide to lower that standard of proof, she said."
Too big to fail doctrine (Score:4, Interesting)
> Currently, when a patent holder accuses someone of infringing a patent, the burden is on the infringer to prove with 'clear and convincing evidence' that the patent is invalid. In hearing this case, the Supreme Court could decide to lower that standard of proof, she said."
AKA, the court usually finds a way to shoehorn something that's highly important to the status quo into some or another legal theory.
So... (Score:4, Interesting)
If Microsoft wins this case, its purported 235 patents that Linux supposedly infringes upon (they have yet to list them after all these years because they are likely piss-weak) are further weakened?
I'm all for it.
Go Microsoft!
--
BMO
Wrong way round, surely (Score:2, Interesting)
The computerworld article is terrible (Score:3, Interesting)
I am a patent attorney. I write and prosecute patents. I don't do litigation. Nevertheless, I've been keeping an eye on the i4i case. The Computerworld article grossly oversimplifies the issues in this case. There are different types of prior art that can be used to invalidate a patent. The prior art at issue in the i4i case is not a printed publication or any type of publicly-available reference the Examiner could have reasonably been expected to find. The prior art at issue is prior art known only to the inventor.
While the Supreme Court could lower the standard across the board for all types of prior art, it's more likely the Court will lower the standard only for prior art not available to the Examiner through printed publications or other publicly-available sources.
For an excellent analysis, see this blog post: http://www.reexamlink.com/category/patent-litigation/
(You have to scroll down to get to the i4i blog entries)
Re:Too big to fail doctrine (Score:4, Interesting)
To be blunt, I don't even know why this got to the Supreme Court. There's little "constitutional" merit to the case. Microsoft is used to companies they can buy our bully.. in this case i4i sold the product TO the patent office so the patent office was in a unique position to know much more about the invention than other ones. Previously, the Supreme Court has said that the Patent Office has the final say... lower Appeals courts have backed that up. This is consistent with the prior ruling on Copyright (from the same clause in the Constitution) that Congress is the one that sets those rules. If you don't like them, talk to Congress.
Back on the topic of Microsoft, they find themselves in the spot that Microsoft has NOTHING these guys want other than to watch Microsoft STOP SELLING something. So for all the games Microsoft plays, they've found themselves at the wrong end of the stick they've enjoyed berating "piracy" for decades. The courts are getting loath to keep allowing endless appeals in these patent cases... many of the lower courts and even other Supreme Court cases point to a trend that the courts want to wash their hands and tell folks to get Congress to fix the rules... also, Bush put into place a lot of "unitary executive" believers, and the Patent Office is an "Executive" department... so the current court is leaning highly toward "em's the Apples" and that's the Law as it stands.