Find Court Cases > Microsoft v. i4i Limited Partnership

Microsoft v. i4i Limited Partnership

Case Date: 04/18/2011
Docket No: none

Facts of the Case 

The owner of a patent for a computer language, i4i Limited Partnership brought suit against Microsoft Corp., alleging that the custom XML editor in certain versions of Microsoft Word, Microsoft's word-processing software, infringed i4i's patent. The jury found Microsoft liable for willful infringement, rejecting the company's argument that the patent was invalid, and awarded $200 million in damages to i4i.

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas denied Microsoft's motions for a new trial. And the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld the district court order, finding that Microsoft needed to offer "clear and convincing evidence" to overcome the traditional presumption that patents approved by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office are valid.

Read the Briefs for this Case
  • Brief for Petitioner
  • Brief of Genentech, Inc., California Healthcare Institute, Roche Diagnostics Operations, Inc. And Roche Molecular Systems, Inc. as Amici Curiae In Support of Respondents
  • Brief for 3m Company, Caterpillar Inc., Johnson & Johnson, Procter & Gamble, General Electric Company, Eli Lilly And Co., Bp, E.i. Du Pont De Nemours And Company, Ecolab Inc., Dolby Laboratories Boston Scientific Corporation, And the Valspar Corporation a
  • Brief of Amicus Curiae San Diego Intellectual Property Law Association And Connect In Support of Respondents
    • Question 

    Must a challenge to a patent's validity offer clear and convincing evidence as proof

    Argument Microsoft v. i4i Limited Partnership - Oral ArgumentFull Transcript Text  Download MP3Microsoft v. i4i Limited Partnership - Opinion AnnouncementFull Transcript Text  Download MP3 Conclusion  Decision: 9 votes for i4i Limited Partnership, 0 vote(s) against Legal provision: Patent invalidity

    Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court order in a unanimous opinion by Justice Sonia Sotomayor. "Section 282 requires an invalidity defense to be proved by clear and convincing evidence," Sotomayor wrote. Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a concurring opinion joined by Justices Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito, in which he "join[s] the Court's opinion in full" but added that "I write separately because, given the technical but important nature of the invalidity question, I believe it worth emphasizing that in this area of law as in others the evidentiary standard of proof applies to questions of fact and not to questions of law."