1. Patent Cases MM 350 Intellectual Property Law and New Media Steve Baron October 5, 2010

2. BILSKI ET AL. v. KAPPOS, No. 08–964. Argued November 9, 2009—Decided June 28, 2010 BILSKI ET AL. v. KAPPOS, No. 08–964. Argued November 9, 2009—Decided June 28, 2010 http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09p df/08-964.pdf http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09p df/08-964.pdf Business method patent on a method of hedging risk in commodities trading By only 5-4, the USSC upholds the validity of business methods patents and denies one to Bilski

3. Majority Opinion: A claimed process is patent eligible if: – (1) it is tied to a particular machine or apparatus, or – (2) it transforms a particular article into a different state or thing. The patent at issue failed the test and therefore was not patent eligible.

4. Tivo v. Echostar (Fed. Cir. 2008) Tivo sues Echostar for infringing the ‘ 389 patent. – Hardware and software claims relating to DVR ’ s Jury verdict in favor of Tivo – $74 million!!! Lost profits and reasonable royalties – Permanent injunction

5. Tivo v. Echostar (Fed. Cir. 2008) Echostar appeals to Federal Circuit: – Reverses and remands on hardware claims – Affirms software claims – Affirms damages award – Affirms permanent injunction – which had been stayed pending appeal

6. Tivo v. Echostar 2008: USSC refused the case. 2009: trial judge fined Tivo an additional 103 million, plus interest.

7. Tivo-more 2009: Tivo wins another 200M. against Dish Network—roughly, same claims 2009: Tivo sues AT&T....BUT – Microsoft sues Tivo (on two patents) 2009: Tivo sues Verizon….. BUT - Motorola, who supplied the sets to Verizon, sues TIVO for infringement

8. Microsoft v. TomTom 2:09-cv-00247 (W. Dist. Wash.) Patent No.:US 6,175,789 Bl Date of Patent: *Jan.16,2001 VEHICLE COMPUTER SYSTEM WITH OPEN PLATFORM ARCHITECTURE Inventors: Richard D. Beckert, Lake Stevens; Mark M. Moeller, Bellingtham; William S. Wong, Redmond, all of WA (US) Assignee: Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA (US) Filed: Sep. 10, 1999

9. Microsoft v. TomTom 2:09-cv-00247 (W. Dist. Wash.) ABSTRACT A vehicle computer system has a housing sized to be mounted in a vehicle dashboard or other appropriate location. A computer is mounted within the housing and executes an open platform, multi-tasking operating system. The computer runs multiple applications on the operating system, including both vehicle-related applications (e.g., vehicle security application, vehicle diagnostics application, communications application, etc.) and non-vehicle-related applications (e.g., entertainment application, word processing, etc.). The applications may be supplied by the vehicle manufacturer and/or by the vehicle user.

10. Microsoft v. TomTom 2:09-cv-00247 (W. Dist. Wash.) Microsoft alleged: – TomTom's navigation products, which use the open source Linux kernel, infringe on a handful of Microsoft's patents. – Two of the patents cited by Microsoft cover legacy compatibility features in Microsoft's FAT filesystem, support for which is implemented in Linux. TomTom responds: – Countersues Microsoft for infringing its patents for various automobile navigation systems.

11. Microsoft v. TomTom 2:09-cv-00247 (W. Dist. Wash.) Case filed on 2/25/09 Case voluntarily dismissed on 4/2/09 Why?

12. MICROSOFT CORP. v. I4I LIMITED PARTNERSHIP ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT MICROSOFT CORP. v. I4I LIMITED PARTNERSHIP ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT Over XML used in WORD No. 10–290. Argued April 18, 2011—Decided June 9, 2011 Microsoft lost at the trial level as well as multiple appeals. 200M judgment, and some fines for calling i41 a patent troll during the case (had enjoined them from selling WORD for a short time) Microsoft attempted to get the USSC to lower the standard for challenging a patent in cases in which the particular aspect within the patent had not been challenged as prior art at the time of the filing. – Wanted “preponderance of evidence” as opposed to “clear and convincing evidence” USSC said “no thanks, the high standard is just fine