Search : Microsoft
Number of summaries found: 31
Search For More Summaries
| Court: | U.S. Fed. Circuit Court of Appeals |
| Topic: | Cyberspace Law, Intellectual Property, Patent, Remedies |
| Title: | Lucent Tech., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. |
| Date: | 09/11/09 |
| Case Number: | 08-1485 |
| Summary: | In Lucent Technologies (Lucent) patent infringement action against Microsoft, district court's judgment against Microsoft is affirmed in part and vacated and remanded in part where: 1) district court's denial of Microsoft's motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) for non-infringement is affirmed as the evidence reasonably permitted the jury to have decided that Microsoft did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that the claims would have been obvious; 2) district court's denial of Microsoft's motion for JMOL that it did not induce infringement of the patent at issue is affirmed; 3) district court's denial of Microsoft's JMOL regarding the jury's $358 million damages award is vacated and remanded for a new trial on damages as it was not supported by substantial evidence and was against the clear weight of the evidence. |
| Court: | U.S. Fed. Circuit Court of Appeals |
| Topic: | Commercial Law, Cyberspace Law, Intellectual Property, Patent |
| Title: | Research Corp. Techs. Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. |
| Date: | 08/01/08 |
| Case Number: | 2006-1275 |
| Summary: | In a suit alleging infringement of patents relating to image halftoning technology, a ruling that the patents were unenforceable due to inequitable conduct is reversed, summary judgments of noninfringement and invalidity and grants of motions in limine are vacated, and case is remanded with instructions to reassign where: 1) inventors' failure to disclose post-filing research to the USPTO was not material and therefore not inequitable conduct; 2) there was no evidence to support a finding that the inventors intended to deceive the PTO; 3) summary judgment was improper given both the error in the inequitable-conduct analysis and the presence of many potential issues of fact in the record; 4) the record was inadequate to allow review of the rulings on motions in limine; and 5) reassignment was appropriate given the strongly expressed convictions of the trial court, which might not be easily and objectively reconsidered. |
| Court: | U.S. Fed. Circuit Court of Appeals |
| Topic: | Cyberspace Law, Intellectual Property, Patent, Remedies |
| Title: | Amado v. Microsoft Corp. |
| Date: | 02/26/08 |
| Case Number: | 2007-1236, 2007-1255 |
| Summary: | In a patent case against Microsoft alleging several versions of Microsoft's Office Suite infringed plaintiff's patent, a decision dissolving a previously-issued permanent injunction and awarding plaintiff $0.12 per infringing unit sold by Microsoft during a period of a stay of a permanent injunction is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) the district court did not abuse its discretion by extending the stay of the permanent injunction, by dissolving the permanent injunction, or by denying Microsoft's motion for relief from judgment; but 2) the district court failed to adequately explain the basis for its award, and recent Supreme Court action may affect post-verdict damages. |
| Court: | U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals |
| Topic: | Antitrust & Trade Regulation, Civil Procedure, Cyberspace Law, Injury And Tort Law, Trade Secrets |
| Title: | GO Computer Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. |
| Date: | 11/19/07 |
| Case Number: | 06-2278 |
| Summary: | In a suit alleging trade secret theft and antitrust injuries committed by defendant Microsoft that purportedly drove "PenPoint"-plaintiffs out of business, dismissal of the complaint on statute of limitations grounds is affirmed over multiple arguments, including plaintiffs' claim that fraudulent concealment delayed the ticking of the clock. |
| Court: | U.S. Fed. Circuit Court of Appeals |
| Topic: | Evidence, Intellectual Property, Patent |
| Title: | Z4 Techs., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. |
| Date: | 11/16/07 |
| Case Number: | 2006-1638 |
| Summary: | In a patent case involving patents related to the prevention of software piracy, denial of Microsoft's renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) following a jury trial is affirmed where: 1) substantial evidence supported the jury's verdict finding that Microsoft had infringed plaintiff's technologies and had failed to prove the patents invalid; and 2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Microsoft's motion for a new trial. |
| Court: | U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals |
| Topic: | Antitrust & Trade Regulation, Civil Procedure, Consumer Products, Cyberspace Law |
| Title: | Novell, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. |
| Date: | 10/15/07 |
| Case Number: | 06-1134, 06-1238 |
| Summary: | On cross appeals from interlocutory orders in an antitrust action, denial of Microsoft's motion to dismiss claims alleging injury to competition in the market for PC operating systems is affirmed: 1) where factors under Ass'n of Gen. Contractors of Cal., Inc. v. Cal. State Council of Carpenters , 459 U.S. 519 (1983), favor granting antitrust standing to Novell on certain counts; and 2) over Microsoft's claim that the court should adopt a bright-line rule that only consumers or competitors in the relevant market have antitrust standing to bring private treble-damages claims under section 4 of the Clayton Act. Order dismissing certain of Novell's counts is also affirmed over claim that the district court erred in dismissing such counts as untimely, which alleged injury to competition in the office-productivity-applications market. |
| Court: | U.S. Fed. Circuit Court of Appeals |
| Topic: | Bankruptcy Law, Civil Procedure, Cyberspace Law, Intellectual Property, Patent |
| Title: | Morrow v. Microsoft Corp. |
| Date: | 09/19/07 |
| Case Number: | 2006-1512, 2006-1518, 2006-1537 |
| Summary: | In a patent dispute brought against Microsoft over a patent relating to dynamic generation of hyperlinks in a source document to other documents, summary judgment of noninfringement in favor of Microsoft is vacated as plaintiff lacked standing to sue Microsoft for infringement of the patent at issue and the district court lacked jurisdiction to rule on the merits. |
| Court: | California Appellate Districts |
| Topic: | Antitrust & Trade Regulation, Consumer Products, Consumer Protection Law, Cyberspace Law, False Advertising |
| Title: | Shersher v. Superior Ct. (Microsoft Corp.) |
| Date: | 09/10/07 |
| Case Number: | B195317 |
| Summary: | In consumer action against defendant Microsoft, petition for writ of mandate challenging order granting motion to strike plaintiff's claim for restitution is granted where plaintiff's allegation that he paid money to a retailer to purchase defendant's product based on false or misleading statements on the product package supports a claim for restitution. |
| Court: | U.S. Fed. Circuit Court of Appeals |
| Topic: | Consumer Products, Cyberspace Law, Intellectual Property, Patent |
| Title: | Motionless Keyboard Co. v. Microsoft Corp. |
| Date: | 05/29/07 |
| Case Number: | 2005-1497 |
| Summary: | In a patent dispute brought against Microsoft, Nokia and Saitek involving an ergonomic keyboard, summary judgment finding that defendants did not infringe, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, plaintiff's patents and that the patents were invalid are affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) the ruling of no infringement was proper as the district court correctly construed a particular claim limitation; but 2) the trial court misapplied the concept of public use and incorrectly found obviousness due to a terminal disclaimer. |
| Court: | U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals |
| Topic: | Civil Procedure, Class Actions, Consumer Products, Cyberspace Law, Injury And Tort Law, Retail |
| Title: | Odom v. Microsoft Corp. |
| Date: | 05/04/07 |
| Case Number: | 04-35468 |
| Summary: | In a putative class action alleging that defendants Microsoft and Best Buy violated RICO via policies and practices related to MSN-subscription Trial CDs and MSN accounts to which consumers were unknowingly subscribed, dismissal of plaintiffs' suit is reversed and remanded where: 1) plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged the existence of an associated-in-fact enterprise within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. sections 1961(4) and 1962(c); and 2) plaintiffs alleged wire fraud with sufficient particularity to satisfy Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b). |