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)
