Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.

Last updated

Uniloc USA Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.
Court United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Full case nameUniloc USA Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.
DecidedJanuary 4, 2011
Citation(s)632 F.3d 1292; 98 U.S.P.Q.2d 1203
Case history
Prior history447 F. Supp. 2d 177 (D.R.I. 2006); No. 03-440 (D.R.I. Oct. 19, 2007); 290 Fed. Appx. 337 (Fed. Cir. 2008); 640 F. Supp. 2d 150 (D.R.I. 2009)
Subsequent historyRehearing denied, March 22, 2011.
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Randall Ray Rader, Richard Linn, Kimberly Ann Moore
Case opinions
MajorityLinn, joined by a unanimous panel
Keywords
Patent infringement under United States law

Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 632 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2011), [1] was a patent lawsuit originally filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island.

Contents

Both Uniloc and Microsoft utilized a product registration software intended to reduce unauthorized copying of software. At the district court level, the court granted summary judgement of non-infringement by Microsoft of Uniloc's patent. [2] The court's ruling was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which reversed and remanded the decision. In the remanded district court case, the jury returned a verdict of infringement, finding Microsoft's infringement to be willful, and rewarding Uniloc $388 million in damages. However the district court granted a new trial on infringement and willfulness as well as other motions following post trial motions. [3] In response, Uniloc appealed once again.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the new trial on infringement, but affirmed that Uniloc lacked evidence to prove willfulness and granted a new trial on damage costs. In this decision, the Federal Circuit shifted precedent and rejected the previously widely used "25 percent rule of thumb" [4] in calculating patent damage awards.

In March 2012, Uniloc and Microsoft reached a "final and mutually agreeable resolution", the terms of which were not disclosed. [5]

Background

Uniloc is a computer security and copy protection software company. Founded in 1992, [6] their technology is based on a patent granted to Ric Richardson and develops "try and buy" software distributed via magazines [7] and preinstalled on new computers. The particular patent in question is the '216 patent (U.S. Patent No. 5,490,216) [8] which is a software registration system that deters copying of software onto other computers. Uniloc argued that its patent was infringed by Microsoft's Product Activation feature. [2]

Microsoft's Product Activation feature serves as a gatekeeper for a variety of Windows operating systems and Microsoft Office products. In this product, users must enter a 25-character alphanumeric product key. The software then forms a Product ID based on the software, and Hardware ID generated from computer information as well. Once Product Activation is initiated, a digital license request is sent to Microsoft over the internet. At this remote location, information is entered either into an MD5 message digest algorithm for Office products or an SHA-1 algorithm for Windows products.

Both pieces of software prevent "casual copying" of software in which users install copies of a program onto multiple computers, violating software license conditions. The algorithms used by Microsoft in their product activation software were alleged to infringe Uniloc's patent.

Original District Court opinion and appeal

In 2007, judge William E. Smith of the District Court ruled in favor of Microsoft. In reaching this decision, the court first issued a claim construction ruling, resulting in several terms that contributed to the instant appeal. The terms include definitions of "registration system", "licensee unique ID", and "algorithm". The 2007 ruling concluded that Microsoft's algorithm to generate a licensee unique ID was not identical to the parallel algorithm in Uniloc's user's local station.

Uniloc appealed the decision of the district court, and a judgment was delivered by the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals in 2008, reversing and remanding the conclusion of non-infringement. According to the court, Uniloc put forth "extensive and by no means conclusory" evidence that the same algorithm was used at the local and remote sites of Microsoft and Uniloc, therefore concluding this determination should have gone to the jury.

Remanded opinion and appeal

The jury returned a verdict of infringement of the '216 patent following a full trial and awarded Uniloc $388 million in damages. The court noted the jury's award was "the fifth largest patent verdict in history." [9] The decision against Microsoft was subsequently overturned on September 29, 2009 when judge William E. Smith "vacated" the jury's verdict, ruling in Microsoft's favor once again. However, the district court, following post trial motions, granted a new trial on infringement and willfulness in infringement. Additionally, the district court granted Judgement as a matter of law (JMOL) of non-infringement on a few bases, granted JMOL of no willfulness, and granted a new trial on damages. In response, Uniloc appealed all but the denial of JMOL of invalidity. [1]

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the grant of JMOL of non-infringement and new trial on infringement, but affirmed the grant of JMOL of no willfulness and a new trial on damages.

Infringement

The case for infringement, according to the Federal Circuit of Appeals rested on three primary issues.

  1. whether Microsoft's software contains "licensee unique ID generating means" as defined in patent 216
  2. whether Microsoft's software contains a "registration system" with a "mode switching means"
  3. whether Microsoft can be liable for direct infringement when the software is run on the user's computer

Based on expert testimony at the district level, the court found that the Microsoft's accused product indeed matched close enough in algorithm to deem that infringement had occurred. Similarly, they found that the '216 patent sufficiently encompassed the methods used in Microsoft's Product Activation. Finally, the Federal Circuit determined, based on precedent, that although the program is run on an end user's computer, the fact that "other parties are necessary to complete the environment... does not necessarily divide the infringement between the necessary parties," thus rejecting all three cruxes on the case for infringement. [1]

JMOL and new trial for willfullness

The Federal Circuit determined that Uniloc had not presented any evidence demonstrating that Microsoft knew that the algorithms it used infringed on the '216 patent. Because of the complex issues involved in the definition of terms in the patent, it was found unreasonable that Microsoft knowingly infringed on the patent, affirming the grant of JMOL of no willfulness and therefore no need to grant a new trial on willfulness. [1]

New trial on damages

The "25 percent rule of thumb" called for a 25 percent royalty rate when calculating patent infringement damages in cases exactly like those in Uniloc and Microsoft's case. [9] When Microsoft had challenged the 25 percent rule, the district court acknowledged the complexity of using the automatic 25 percent royalty in this case, but rejected Microsoft's position because of how widely accepted the rule had been. However, the Federal Circuit noted that it is subject to criticism on three points: [10]

  1. it fails to account for the unique relationship between the patents and the accused products;
  2. it fails to account for the unique relationship between the parties;
  3. the rule is essentially arbitrary and does not fit within the model of the hypothetical negotiation within which it is based.

Citing decisions in Lucent v. Gateway [11] and other cases, the Circuit stated that

The 25 percent rule fails to do so and cannot be used blindly as it says nothing about a particular negotiation nor the particular technology, industry, or party; the court then noted "the danger of admitting consideration of the entire market value of the accused where the patented component does not create the basis for customer demand", as seen in this case. [1]

Implications

One potentially lasting aspect to this case is the court's rejection of the 25 percent rule, finding it "fundamentally flawed". This rule suggested royalty rates for patent infringement awards should equal 25 percent of the profits that could be expected from products that utilized the intellectual property contained in an infringed patent. The effects of rejecting the 25 percent rule precedence would be felt across all industries where patents are utilized to protect intellectual property. [12] The rejection of the 25 percent rule underscores the importance of using facts of a particular case in calculating damages owed. [13] Despite being widely accepted prior to this court decision, the 25 percent rule's rejection will likely lead to new trials on damages from previous lawsuits. [14] Further, it has been acknowledged that without the 25 percent rule, royalty rates awarded in court will decrease. [15] As was noted by expert testimony in the case as well, industry standard royalty rates are rarely ever as much as 25 percent.

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Eolas</span>

Eolas is a United States technology firm formed as a spin-off from the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), in order to commercialize UCSF's patents for work done there by Eolas' co-founders, as part of the Visible Embryo Project. The company was founded in 1994 by Dr. Michael Doyle, Rachelle Tunik, David Martin, and Cheong Ang from the UCSF Center for Knowledge Management (CKM). The company was created at the request of UCSF, and was founded by the inventors of the university's patents.

Uniloc Corporation is a company founded in Australia in 1992.

<i>Alcatel-Lucent v. Microsoft Corp.</i> Legal case

Alcatel-Lucent v. Microsoft Corp., also known as Lucent Technologies Inc. v. Gateway Inc., was a long-running patent infringement case between Alcatel-Lucent and Microsoft litigated in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California and appealed multiple times to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Alcatel-Lucent was awarded $1.53 billion in a final verdict in August 2007 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California in San Diego. The damages award was reversed on appeal in September 2009, and the case was returned for a separate trial on the amount of damages.

Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp., 550 U.S. 437 (2007), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Supreme Court reversed a previous decision by the Federal Circuit and ruled in favor of Microsoft, holding that Microsoft was not liable for infringement on AT&T's patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(f).

In the United States, a valid patent provides its proprietor with the right to exclude others from practicing the invention claimed in that patent. A person who practices that invention without the permission of the patent holder infringes that patent.

Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc., 553 U.S. 617 (2008), is a case decided by the United States Supreme Court in which the Court reaffirmed the validity of the patent exhaustion doctrine. The decision made uncertain the continuing precedential value of a line of decisions in the Federal Circuit that had sought to limit Supreme Court exhaustion doctrine decisions to their facts and to require a so-called "rule of reason" analysis of all post-sale restrictions other than tie-ins and price fixes. In the course of restating the patent exhaustion doctrine, the Court held that it is triggered by, among other things, an authorized sale of a component when the only reasonable and intended use of the component is to engage the patent and the component substantially embodies the patented invention by embodying its essential features. The Court also overturned, in passing, that the exhaustion doctrine was limited to product claims and did not apply to method claims.

Fonar Corp. v. General Electric Co., 107 F.3d 1543, was a case decided in 1997 by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit concerning source code and the disclosure requirement for software patents.

Ecolab v. FMC, 569 F.3d 1335, is a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC).

i4i is an independent software company specializing in the delivery of XML / SGML document processing software in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, founded by Michel Vulpe in 1993.

TiVo Inc. v. EchoStar Corp. is a case stretching from 2004 to 2011, which took place in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas and the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. TiVo Inc. sued EchoStar Corp. claiming patent infringement of a DVR technology. The issues addressed during litigation included patent infringement, wording of injunctions, infringing product redesign, contempt of court orders, and contempt sanctions. Ultimately, the court held that EchoStar Corp. had indeed infringed TiVo Inc's patent and was in contempt of court for noncompliance of an injunction. The parties reached a settlement wherein EchoStar Corp. paid TiVo Inc. a licensing fee. Further, the court replaced the established contempt test with a single step test. The simplified test makes it more difficult for patent holders to prove contempt as a result of repeat infringement.

The smartphone wars or smartphone patents licensing and litigation refers to commercial struggles among smartphone manufacturers including Sony Mobile, Google, Apple Inc., Samsung, Microsoft, Nokia, Motorola, Huawei, LG Electronics, ZTE and HTC, by patent litigation and other means. The conflict is part of the wider "patent wars" between technology and software corporations.

Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. was the first of a series of ongoing lawsuits between Apple Inc. and Samsung Electronics regarding the design of smartphones and tablet computers; between them, the companies made more than half of smartphones sold worldwide as of July 2012. In the spring of 2011, Apple began litigating against Samsung in patent infringement suits, while Apple and Motorola Mobility were already engaged in a patent war on several fronts. Apple's multinational litigation over technology patents became known as part of the mobile device "smartphone patent wars": extensive litigation in fierce competition in the global market for consumer mobile communications. By August 2011, Apple and Samsung were litigating 19 ongoing cases in nine countries; by October, the legal disputes expanded to ten countries. By July 2012, the two companies were still embroiled in more than 50 lawsuits around the globe, with billions of dollars in damages claimed between them. While Apple won a ruling in its favor in the U.S., Samsung won rulings in South Korea, Japan, and the UK. On June 4, 2013, Samsung won a limited ban from the U.S. International Trade Commission on sales of certain Apple products after the commission found Apple had violated a Samsung patent, but this was vetoed by U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman.

Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc., 593 U.S. ___ (2021), was a U.S. Supreme Court decision related to the nature of computer code and copyright law. The dispute centered on the use of parts of the Java programming language's application programming interfaces (APIs) and about 11,000 lines of source code, which are owned by Oracle, within early versions of the Android operating system by Google. Google has since transitioned Android to a copyright-unburdened engine without the source code, and has admitted to using the APIs but claimed this was within fair use.

Finjan, Inc. v. Secure Computing Corp., 626 F.3d 1197 (2010), was a patent infringement case by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit involving "proactive scanning" technology for computer security. The Federal Circuit made a mixed decision after hearing the appeals from both sides. In terms of infringement, the Federal Circuit affirmed Secure Computing's infringement on Finjan's system and storage medium patent claims but reversed the infringement on Finjan's method claim. In terms of damage award, the Federal Circuit not only affirmed the previous $9.18 million award by the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, but also remanded for the district court to assess the extra damages between the post-judgement and pre-injunction period.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">VirnetX</span> Company described as a patent troll

VirnetX is a publicly traded Internet security software and technology company based in Zephyr Cove, Nevada.

<i>Microsoft Corp. v. Motorola Inc.</i> United States court case about software licensing

Microsoft Corp. v. Motorola Inc., 696 F.3d 872 was a United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit case about Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory (RAND) Licensing and foreign anti-suit injunction.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Kara Farnandez Stoll</span> American judge (born 1968)

Kara Ann Farnandez Stoll is a United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc., 579 U.S. ___ (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the two-part Seagate test, used to determine when a district court may increase damages for patent infringement, is not consistent with Section 284 of the Patent Act.

Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc., 590 U.S. ___ (2020), was a United States Supreme Court case related to trademark law under the Lanham Act. In the 9–0 decision on judgement, the Court ruled that a plaintiff in a trademark infringement lawsuit is not required to demonstrate that the defendant willfully infringed on their trademark to claim lost profit damages.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 632F.3d1292 ( Fed. Cir. 2011).
  2. 1 2 Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 447F. Supp. 2d177 ( D.R.I. 2006).
  3. ↑ Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 640F. Supp. 2d150 ( D.R.I. 2009).
  4. ↑ Robert Goldscheider; John Jarosz and Carla Mulhern (December 2002). "Use Of The 25 Per Cent Rule In Valuing IP" (PDF). les Nouvelles. pp. 123–133. Archived from the original (PDF) on May 26, 2012. Retrieved November 24, 2012.
  5. ↑ Decker, Susan (March 5, 2012). "Microsoft Settles Fight Over Uniloc Anti-Piracty Patent". Bloomberg. Retrieved October 23, 2012.
  6. ↑ "Corporate Profile for Uniloc, dated Dec. 4, 1999. - Free Online Library". Thefreelibrary.com. Retrieved October 23, 2012.
  7. ↑ "Uniloc Debuts 'TITLEwave' CD & DVD; Consumers Can Try Top Software Programs Before They Buy". Business Wire. 1999. Retrieved July 25, 2012.
  8. ↑ US 5490216
  9. 1 2 ""25 Percent Rule Of Thumb" To Estimate Patent Damages Found Inadmissible Under Daubert And FRE 702".
  10. ↑ Casino, Joseph M.; Suzue Fujimori; Michael J. Kasdan. "Uniloc USA v. Microsoft: Federal Circuit Held the 25% Rule of Thumb By Damages Expert is a Fundamentally Flawed Tool for Determining a Baseline Royalty Rate In Patent Damages Analysis". Amster Rothstein & Ebenstein LLP. Retrieved October 16, 2012.
  11. ↑ Lucent Technologies, Inc. v. Gateway, Inc., 58F.3d1301 (Fed. Cir.2009).
  12. ↑ "Federal Circuit Breaks the 25 Percent Rule of Thumb". Bracewell & Giuliani LLP. January 12, 2011. Archived from the original on January 18, 2013. Retrieved November 1, 2012.
  13. ↑ Franecki, Cynthia J. "Court Finds 25 Percent "Rule Of Thumb" To Be A Fundamentally Flawed Patent Damages Tool". Patent Law Practice Center. Retrieved October 16, 2012.
  14. ↑ Paris, David N. "Uniloc v. Microsoft: Federal Circuit Rejects Use of 25% Rule". Stout Risus Ross. Archived from the original on June 25, 2013. Retrieved October 16, 2012.
  15. ↑ McEwen, James G. "Feature Comment: The Impact of Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. on Patent Damages under 28 U.S.C. §1498(a)". Archived from the original on November 30, 2012. Retrieved October 16, 2012.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.