“Clear and Convincing Evidence”

Case “Microsoft Vs i4i” interests me as I saw the recent Supreme Court decision to hear this case again.

Long story in short, i4i filed a patent in 1994 and gets granted on 07/98 (US 5,787,449). ‘449 relates to a system and method for the separate manipulation of the architecture and content of a document, particularly for data representation and transformations. Interestingly, Microsoft, in its new product, described the new feature as “truly integrate your documents with business processes and business data,” and explained the role of XML Data Store in MS Office 2007 documents. Unfortunately, description of the MS Office document XML Data Store basically equates to the i4i patent’s description of the “raw content area.” Similarly, Microsoft description of the “relationship from the main document” to the data stored in the XML Data Store relates to the i4i patent’s metacode mapping.

I4i sued Microsoft for Patent infringement and in turn Microsoft requested and filed a Re-examination of the ‘449 Claims citing Prior arts ”DeRose” and “Cowan”. The Lower court said that the ‘449 Claims are valid and Microsoft decided to appeal to the Federal court. Even CAFC, affirmed the lower courts decision and ordered a heavy injunction on Microsoft. With a clear infringement, Microsoft has got less or no space in fighting for technicality or Novelty requirements of ‘449 Patent.

Knowing this, Microsoft has appealed to the apex court in an interesting manner. Microsoft is expected to attack the system of validating patents itself.  For sure, it will request the apex court to consider and lessen the burden of defendants to show prior arts for“clear and convincing evidence”. On the other hand i4i Chairman Loudon Owen warned about Microsoft’s argument that patent invalidity should be held to a lower standard. “The attack on patent holders and the adverse implications from the standard Microsoft is proposing is unprecedented and would deal a devastating blow to any U.S. patent holder, large or small,” Owen said. “Naturally, the proposed standard would be particularly destructive to the value of patents for inventors, technology pioneers and entrepreneurial companies that don’t have the resources of Microsoft and other giants.

We will come to know, whether the Supreme Court will nod for the change in Legal system, particularly the burden of Proof section, when the case to be heard in Spring 2011.

Author – Veera Raghavan Rajendran,

Senior Patent Consultant, IIPRD.

The Author of the Blog can be reached:  Raghavan@iiprd.com.

 

 

Leave a Reply

Archives

  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • September 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010