ESP Wiki is looking for moderators and active contributors!

Difference between revisions of "I4i v. Microsoft (2009, USA)"

(SRZbKBwezOD)
m (Reverted edits by 93.99.206.1 (Talk) to last revision by Ciaran)
Line 1: Line 1:
  http://www.baleiaemchamas.com/doxycycline.html doxycycline %-P http://www.rea2009.org/ xanax to purchase >:)) http://www.urbanprophet.net/ about phentermine 941195
+
{{navbox}}
 +
'''i4i v. Microsoft''' was a 2009 [[Case law in the USA|court case in the USA]] of [[software patent]] litigation where [[Microsoft]] was convicted, by a jury, of [[wilfully infringing]] a patent of ''i4i inc.'' The venue was the [[East Texas]] district court.  On repeated appeals to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Microsoft lost three times.
 +
 
 +
The issue at stake was a claimed patent infringement by Microsoft's implementation of "custom XML", a proprietary extension within Word's native [[OOXML]] document format. Microsoft was forced to withdraw current versions of Word and to remove or reduce the functionality of the OOXML format from future versions.
 +
 
 +
i4i inc. has confirmed that the [[free software]] OpenOffice.org word processor does not infringe this patent.<ref>http://gcn.com/Articles/2009/08/17/Federal-future-Microsoft-Word-uncertain.aspx?Page=2</ref>
 +
 
 +
==Timeline and documents==
 +
In chronological order, newest first: (yyyy-mm-dd)
 +
 
 +
* 2010-05-11: USPTO concludes reexamination, upholds i4i's patent US5,787,449.<ref>http://www.techflash.com/seattle/2010/05/patent_upheld_i4i_scores_another_win_in_microsoft_dispute.html</ref>  The reexamination certificate was then published on the 27 July 2010.<ref>http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/uspto-concludes-patent-validity-for-i4i-99315319.html</ref>
 +
* 2010-04-01: Microsoft's i4i patent appeal denied<ref>http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Windows/Microsoft-Request-In-i4i-Case-Rejected-By-Court-738746/</ref><ref>http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2010/04/01/microsoft-appeal-i4i.html</ref>
 +
* 2010-03-10: [[CAFC]] affirms the district court's ruling again<ref>http://www.pcworld.com/printable/article/id,191248/printable.html</ref> after a request from Microsoft to reconsider the initial CAFC decision
 +
* 2009-12-22: CAFC affirms the district court's ruling([http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/09-1504.pdf 09-1504.pdf])
 +
* 2009-09-02: Microsoft is granted its request for a stay (delay) in applying the injunction.  (Is there a document to back this up?)
 +
* 2009-08-28?: Amicus briefs supporting Microsoft's appeal: [http://blog.seattlepi.com/microsoft/library/20090828dellbrief.pdf Dell], [http://www.patentlyo.com/2009_2d08_2d24_20non_2dconf_20hewlett_2dpackard_20co_20amicus_20curiae_20brief_20iso_20defendant_2dappellant_20er_20motion_20to_20stay_20permanent_20injunction.pdf HP] (See also: [[Dell]], [[HP]])
 +
* 2009-08-18: [http://www.patentlyo.com/files/2009-1504.pdf Microsoft Motion for Emergency Stay]
 +
* 2009-08-11: [http://www.patentlyo.com/files/20090817i4imemo.pdf Judge Davis Memorandum]
 +
* 2009-08-11: [http://www.groklaw.net/pdf/i4ivMS-412.pdf The opinion]
 +
* 2009-08-11: [http://i.zdnet.com/blogs/msfti4ijudgment.pdf The judgement]
 +
* 2009-08-11: [http://i.zdnet.com/blogs/msfti4iinjunction.pdf The injunction against Microsoft]
 +
* 2008-11-21: (?) Microsoft requests re-examination of claims 14-20, citing DeRose and Cowan: [http://www.patentlyo.com/files/90010347-4.pdf 90010347-4.pdf]  (Hard to read this document; see [[Talk:I4i v. Microsoft (2009, USA)#Someone_understand_the_reexamination.3F_90010347-4.pdf|Talk:]])
 +
* 1998-07-28: [http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=y8UkAAAAEBAJ&dq=5,787,449 US5,787,449] - "The '449 patent" issued by the [[USPTO]] to i4i
 +
* 1994-06-02: i4i files their patent application<ref>http://www.patentlyo.com/files/90010347-4.pdf (pdf page 35 - "page 1 of 42")</ref>
 +
 
 +
==Who is i4i inc.?==
 +
i4i inc. ("''Infrastructures for Information''") is company founded in 1993,<ref>http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20090816192814737</ref> based in Toronto, [[Canada]].<ref>http://www.informationweek.com/news/software/enterpriseapps/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=219400044</ref>  They filed their complaint against Microsoft on March 8th 2007.<ref>http://www.groklaw.net/pdf/i4ivMSComp.pdf</ref>  Microsoft recruited i4i to help them on a number sales opportunities where the customer, the US government, required support for user defined XML schemas, a capability that i4i brought to Word and Microsoft was unable to deliver.  Microsoft promoted i4i as the solution the government requirement for XML in Word.  In 2003 Microsoft visited i4i to advance the relationship and develop a deeper understanding of software with features similar to the now-disputed CustomXML.<ref>http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/the-biblical-vengeance-of-i4i/article1253054/</ref>
 +
 
 +
In an undated email which can be placed somewhere, a developer on Microsoft's XML for Word team wrote to a colleague "''We saw [i4i's products] some time ago and met its creators. Word 11 will make it obsolete''".<ref>http://www.informationweek.com/news/software/enterpriseapps/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=219300122</ref>  Word 11 was released in 2003, and this email was probably sent before or soon after Word 11's release.
 +
 
 +
===A patent troll? ===
 +
The patent is held by "i4i LP" (not i4i inc.), and the litigation is financed by i4i Inc., McLeanWatson Capital and Northwater Patent Fund. According to "Excerpts from Trial Transcript (May 12, 2009 Afternoon)"<ref>http://www.patentlyo.com/files/2009-1504.pdf</ref> i4i inc. make an add-on, called x4o, which works with Microsoft's word processor.  archive.org has webpages of this product dating back to February 2003 <ref>http://web.archive.org/web/20030207000848/http://www.i4i.com/x4o.htm</ref>, which show it being on sale since March 2003.<ref>http://web.archive.org/web/20030819141741/www.i4i.com/x4o_User.htm</ref>  According to Microsoft's Motion for Emergency Stay, i4i inc. didn't lose profits when Microsoft released Word 2003 and actually improved its revenue after the release of Microsoft Word 2003.<ref>http://www.patentlyo.com/files/2009-1504.pdf (pdf page 20)</ref>
 +
 
 +
==Trial misconduct==
 +
$40 million was added to the judgement against Microsoft for making arguments that were "''persistent, legally improper, and in direct violation of the Court's instructions''".<ref>http://www.informationweek.com/news/software/enterpriseapps/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=219400044</ref>  During the trial, Microsoft repeatedly argued that i4i was wrong to demand damages since they themselves don't produce a product (i.e. they were accused of being a [[patent troll]]). They do have a relevant product (the x4o add-on), but Microsoft's argumentation was judged to be misconduct because there is no law against what i4i is doing even if they didn't produce a product, and therefore it is not relevant to the case.
 +
 
 +
* The argument that i4i was a patent Troll was also raised at trial by the Microsoft Legal team. The trial judge sanctioned Microsoft's counsel for repeatedly stepping outside of the court's very clear guidelines on this matter.
 +
* A previous example of a very similar case, where Microsoft were accused of similar behavior, is [[Uniloc v. Microsoft (2009, USA)]] - Microsoft have since been ordered to pay $388 million to Uniloc, in a trial conducted by a federal court in Rhode Island, in a decision handed down in July, 2009.
 +
* Microsoft seem to be developing a history of such actions, with similar companies. {{help|which?  For a claim like this, we should give examples - and if no examples are documented yet, then let's do that.}}
 +
Please examine & expand the title; [Microsoft - Patents & Business practice - A simple reminder and primer, as follows;]
 +
 
 +
==Related pages on {{SITENAME}}==
 +
* [[XML patents]]
 +
* [[Microsoft#Microsoft's patent infringements]]
 +
* [[Litigation and specific patents]]
 +
* [[Stac v. Microsoft (1993, USA)]] - a previous conviction for wilful patent infringement
 +
* [[Case law in the USA]]
 +
 
 +
==External links==
 +
* [http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=22595 ZDnet blogs looks at the patent]
 +
* [http://i.zdnet.com/blogs/msfti4icomplaint.pdf i4i's original complaint against Microsoft]
 +
* [http://i.zdnet.com/blogs/msfti4iinjunction.pdf The August 11th 2009 injunction against Microsoft]
 +
* [http://i.zdnet.com/blogs/msfti4ijudgment.pdf The August 11th 2009 judgement]
 +
* [http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-txedce/case_no-6:2007cv00113/case_id-101834/ justia.com's court documents for this case (6:2007cv00113)]
 +
* [http://www.patenthawk.com/blog/2010/03/i4i_review_redux.html i4i Review Redux], March 2010
 +
 
 +
===Press coverage===
 +
* [http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D98A7C284.htm Microsoft to pay $200m to i4i for XML editing]
 +
** [http://www.techflash.com/Microsoft_hit_with_200M_patent_infringement__45528482.html same story on techflash.com]
 +
** [http://techdirt.com/articles/20090526/0238335008.shtml same story on techdirt.com]
 +
* [http://sev.prnewswire.com/banking-financial-services/20090811/DA6039911082009-1.html McKool Smith: Judge Upholds Verdict, Enhances Damages, Issues Permanent Injunction Against Microsoft]
 +
* [http://www.arnnet.com.au/article/314620/injunction_microsoft_word_unlikely_halt_sales MS given 60 days to stop selling Word]
 +
* [http://news.techworld.com/applications/121515/microsoft-embarrassed-by-new-xml-patent-email Microsoft knew of the i4i patent in 2001]
 +
* 2009-09-23: [http://reddevnews.com/articles/2009/09/23/judges-hear-appeal-arguments-in-microsoft-v-i4i-case.aspx Judges Hear Appeal Arguments in Microsoft vs. i4i Case]
 +
 
 +
====Patently-o====
 +
* 2009-08-12: [http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2009/08/i4i-ltd-v-microsoft-corp-ed-tex-2009-texas-style-the-order-from-judge-davis-gets-right-to-the-point---in-accordance.html Microsoft Ordered to Stop Selling MS Word]
 +
* 2009-08-21: [http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2009/08/t-minus-50-microsoft-requests-emergency-stay-of-injunctive-relief.html t minus 50: Microsoft Requests Emergency Stay of Injunctive Relief]
 +
* 2009-08-25: [http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2009/08/microsoft-v-i4i-relevance-of-the-pending-reexamination.html Microsoft v. i4i: Relevance of the Pending Reexamination]
 +
* 2009-08-28: [http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2009/08/microsoft-v-i4i-briefing-the-appeal.html Microsoft v. i4i: Briefing the Appeal]
 +
* 2009-09-03: [http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2009/09/appellate-court-stays-injunction-against-microsoft-word.html Appellate Court Stays Injunction Against Microsoft Word]
 +
 
 +
====Groklaw====
 +
* 2009-08-12: [http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20090812144154814 The i4i v. Microsoft Orders and Permanent Injunction]
 +
* 2009-08-16: [http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20090816192814737 Microsoft Files Emergency Motion to Stay Execution of Judgment in i4i]
 +
* 2009-08-18: [http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20090817235436439 Why didn't Microsoft tell us about i4i's patent litigation during the OOXML standards push?]
 +
* 2009-08-18: [http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20090818220732826 Microsoft files notice of appeal against i4i ruling; stipulates waiver of bond, begs for stay]
 +
* 2009-08-19: [http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20090819083920659 Microsoft's Emergency Motion for a Stay Repeats Arguments Already Rejected by District Court]
 +
* 2009-08-29: [http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20090829110124793 The Dell amicus brief, PDF and text, HP's as PDF]
 +
* 2009-09-04: [http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20090904195554466 The i4i v. Microsoft Order Staying the Injunction]
 +
 
 +
====General links, temporary storage====
 +
* [http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20041228040645419 Groklaw - The Microsoft Litigation Resource Page]
 +
* [http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page=20051216153153504 Groklaw - All things ODF & OOXML]
 +
* [http://www.answers.com/topic/microsoft] Microsoft - A history in the making
 +
* [http://www.microsoft.com/about/legal/consumersettlements/default.mspx] Wordstar Class Action
 +
* [http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1031768/visto-sues-rim-microsoft-good] Visto - The early years
 +
* [http://blogs.barrons.com/techtraderdaily/2008/03/03/microsoft-settles-visto-litigation-will-rimm-do-the-same/] Visto - Microsoft Down; Rimm Next?
 +
* [http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513_22-139738.html] Wordperfect - Novell strikes back
 +
* [http://www.consortiuminfo.org/standardsblog/index.php?topic=20071125145019553] The EU & Microsoft (of things ODF & XML & Standards)
 +
* [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1358924] Microsoft & the EU (The Incentives Balance Test in the EU Microsoft Case: A More 'Economics-Based' Approach?)
 +
* [http://www.fiercebroadbandwireless.com/story/csiro-ready-wifi-patent-fight/2007-10-04] The Australian Boffins strike back - the CSIRO & Wi-Fi
 +
* [http://www.itnews.com.au/News/142482,more-giants-buckle-in-csiro-wi-fi-patent-case.aspx] More giants buckle in CSIRO Wi-Fi patent case
 +
* [http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/software/soa/Microsoft-Fujitsu-Asus-settle-with-CSIRO/0,130061733,339295967,00.htm?feed=rss] Microsoft, Fujitsu, Asus settle with CSIRO
 +
* [http://wow-factor.com/index.php/csiro-wins-wifi-patent-settlement] The little Aussie battler, CSIRO Wins Wi-Fi Patent Settlement
 +
* [http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/soa/Legal-experts-Microsoft-s-stake-in-Corel-dangerous-/0,139023165,120204747,00.htm] Legal experts: Microsoft's stake in Corel 'dangerous'
 +
 
 +
==References==
 +
{{reflist}}
 +
 
 +
 
 +
{{footer}}
 +
[[Category:Microsoft]]
 +
[[Category:Court cases and litigation]]
 +
[[Category:Wilful infringement]]
 +
[[Category:East Texas District Court cases]]

Revision as of 15:23, 23 August 2010

i4i v. Microsoft was a 2009 court case in the USA of software patent litigation where Microsoft was convicted, by a jury, of wilfully infringing a patent of i4i inc. The venue was the East Texas district court. On repeated appeals to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Microsoft lost three times.

The issue at stake was a claimed patent infringement by Microsoft's implementation of "custom XML", a proprietary extension within Word's native OOXML document format. Microsoft was forced to withdraw current versions of Word and to remove or reduce the functionality of the OOXML format from future versions.

i4i inc. has confirmed that the free software OpenOffice.org word processor does not infringe this patent.[1]

Timeline and documents

In chronological order, newest first: (yyyy-mm-dd)

  • 2010-05-11: USPTO concludes reexamination, upholds i4i's patent US5,787,449.[2] The reexamination certificate was then published on the 27 July 2010.[3]
  • 2010-04-01: Microsoft's i4i patent appeal denied[4][5]
  • 2010-03-10: CAFC affirms the district court's ruling again[6] after a request from Microsoft to reconsider the initial CAFC decision
  • 2009-12-22: CAFC affirms the district court's ruling(09-1504.pdf)
  • 2009-09-02: Microsoft is granted its request for a stay (delay) in applying the injunction. (Is there a document to back this up?)
  • 2009-08-28?: Amicus briefs supporting Microsoft's appeal: Dell, HP (See also: Dell, HP)
  • 2009-08-18: Microsoft Motion for Emergency Stay
  • 2009-08-11: Judge Davis Memorandum
  • 2009-08-11: The opinion
  • 2009-08-11: The judgement
  • 2009-08-11: The injunction against Microsoft
  • 2008-11-21: (?) Microsoft requests re-examination of claims 14-20, citing DeRose and Cowan: 90010347-4.pdf (Hard to read this document; see Talk:)
  • 1998-07-28: US5,787,449 - "The '449 patent" issued by the USPTO to i4i
  • 1994-06-02: i4i files their patent application[7]

Who is i4i inc.?

i4i inc. ("Infrastructures for Information") is company founded in 1993,[8] based in Toronto, Canada.[9] They filed their complaint against Microsoft on March 8th 2007.[10] Microsoft recruited i4i to help them on a number sales opportunities where the customer, the US government, required support for user defined XML schemas, a capability that i4i brought to Word and Microsoft was unable to deliver. Microsoft promoted i4i as the solution the government requirement for XML in Word. In 2003 Microsoft visited i4i to advance the relationship and develop a deeper understanding of software with features similar to the now-disputed CustomXML.[11]

In an undated email which can be placed somewhere, a developer on Microsoft's XML for Word team wrote to a colleague "We saw [i4i's products] some time ago and met its creators. Word 11 will make it obsolete".[12] Word 11 was released in 2003, and this email was probably sent before or soon after Word 11's release.

A patent troll?

The patent is held by "i4i LP" (not i4i inc.), and the litigation is financed by i4i Inc., McLeanWatson Capital and Northwater Patent Fund. According to "Excerpts from Trial Transcript (May 12, 2009 Afternoon)"[13] i4i inc. make an add-on, called x4o, which works with Microsoft's word processor. archive.org has webpages of this product dating back to February 2003 [14], which show it being on sale since March 2003.[15] According to Microsoft's Motion for Emergency Stay, i4i inc. didn't lose profits when Microsoft released Word 2003 and actually improved its revenue after the release of Microsoft Word 2003.[16]

Trial misconduct

$40 million was added to the judgement against Microsoft for making arguments that were "persistent, legally improper, and in direct violation of the Court's instructions".[17] During the trial, Microsoft repeatedly argued that i4i was wrong to demand damages since they themselves don't produce a product (i.e. they were accused of being a patent troll). They do have a relevant product (the x4o add-on), but Microsoft's argumentation was judged to be misconduct because there is no law against what i4i is doing even if they didn't produce a product, and therefore it is not relevant to the case.

  • The argument that i4i was a patent Troll was also raised at trial by the Microsoft Legal team. The trial judge sanctioned Microsoft's counsel for repeatedly stepping outside of the court's very clear guidelines on this matter.
  • A previous example of a very similar case, where Microsoft were accused of similar behavior, is Uniloc v. Microsoft (2009, USA) - Microsoft have since been ordered to pay $388 million to Uniloc, in a trial conducted by a federal court in Rhode Island, in a decision handed down in July, 2009.
  • Microsoft seem to be developing a history of such actions, with similar companies. Can you help? which? For a claim like this, we should give examples - and if no examples are documented yet, then let's do that.

Please examine & expand the title; [Microsoft - Patents & Business practice - A simple reminder and primer, as follows;]

Related pages on ESP Wiki

External links

Press coverage

Patently-o

Groklaw

General links, temporary storage

  • Groklaw - The Microsoft Litigation Resource Page
  • Groklaw - All things ODF & OOXML
  • [1] Microsoft - A history in the making
  • [2] Wordstar Class Action
  • [3] Visto - The early years
  • [4] Visto - Microsoft Down; Rimm Next?
  • [5] Wordperfect - Novell strikes back
  • [6] The EU & Microsoft (of things ODF & XML & Standards)
  • [7] Microsoft & the EU (The Incentives Balance Test in the EU Microsoft Case: A More 'Economics-Based' Approach?)
  • [8] The Australian Boffins strike back - the CSIRO & Wi-Fi
  • [9] More giants buckle in CSIRO Wi-Fi patent case
  • [10] Microsoft, Fujitsu, Asus settle with CSIRO
  • [11] The little Aussie battler, CSIRO Wins Wi-Fi Patent Settlement
  • [12] Legal experts: Microsoft's stake in Corel 'dangerous'

References