Difference between revisions of "EB: i4i Ltd. Partnership v. Microsoft Corp., 598 F.3d 831 (2010)"

From Bill Goodwine's Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
(i4)
 
 
Line 1: Line 1:
 
==The Situation==
 
==The Situation==
 
*i4i owned patent for a method of editing custom XML
 
*i4i owned patent for a method of editing custom XML
**i4i accuses Microsoft of infringing with their product, Microsoft Word
+
**Patent covered splitting content from XML tags ("metacode") - you could work on each aspect separately which offers and advantage
 +
*i4i accuses Microsoft of infringing with their product, Microsoft Word
  
 
==Decision==
 
==Decision==
Line 9: Line 10:
 
*Remedies for infringement - civil action (not criminal)
 
*Remedies for infringement - civil action (not criminal)
 
*Injunction - court orders someone to do something - in this case, court orders Microsoft to stop selling, using, providing support for products involving the infringed claims.
 
*Injunction - court orders someone to do something - in this case, court orders Microsoft to stop selling, using, providing support for products involving the infringed claims.
 +
*JMOL=saw all the evidence, it was not sufficient for a decision - then you need a JMOL (here, the court ruled that there was enough evidence and rejected the request for a JMOL)
 +
**Only JMOL that the court grants is in regards to the injunction time frame (judge rules that it should be 6 mo. rather than 30 days as was originally ruled by the jury)

Latest revision as of 12:16, 20 April 2011

The Situation

  • i4i owned patent for a method of editing custom XML
    • Patent covered splitting content from XML tags ("metacode") - you could work on each aspect separately which offers and advantage
  • i4i accuses Microsoft of infringing with their product, Microsoft Word

Decision

Microsoft infringed, willingly, and must pay i4i $200 million

In Class

  • Remedies for infringement - civil action (not criminal)
  • Injunction - court orders someone to do something - in this case, court orders Microsoft to stop selling, using, providing support for products involving the infringed claims.
  • JMOL=saw all the evidence, it was not sufficient for a decision - then you need a JMOL (here, the court ruled that there was enough evidence and rejected the request for a JMOL)
    • Only JMOL that the court grants is in regards to the injunction time frame (judge rules that it should be 6 mo. rather than 30 days as was originally ruled by the jury)