MICROSOFT CORPORATION v. INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

Summarized by:

  • Court: Intellectual Property Archives
  • Area(s) of Law: Patents, Infringement
  • Date Filed: 10-03-2013
  • Case #: 2012-1445, 2012-1535
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit
  • LexisNexis Citation: 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 20205
  • Westlaw Citation: 2013 WL 5479876
  • Full Text Opinion

Patent infringement and the existence of a domestic industry relating to the articles protected by the patent must both be shown to establish a violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930.

Opinion (TARANTO): Microsoft Corp. ("Microsoft") alleged that Motorola Mobility, Inc. ("Motorola") violated section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930. A 337 violation requires two elements; 1) infringement of a patent, and 2) the existence of a domestic industry relating to the articles protected by the patent. Microsoft alleged Motorola infringed four of its patents, numbers ‘054, ‘762, ‘376, and ‘133. The Federal Trade Commission (the Commission) affirmed the ALJ’s initial judgments and found no infringement of any of the patents. The Commission also found that Microsoft failed to prove the existence of a domestic industry relating to articles protected by its patents. On appeal, Microsoft argued the ALJ’s claim construction of the ‘054 patent. The Court found the general term “state” necessarily required further clarification and that the accused products could not infringe the ‘054 claims because they did not use “resource state information.” With respect to the ‘376 and the ‘762 patents, the Court found substantial evidence that Microsoft failed to prove a domestic industry because there was not sufficient evidence proving any third-party mobile device implemented “articles protected by the patents.” Finally, the Court found error in the ALJ’s imputation of a “deliberate” intention requirement to the functionality of the ‘133 patent. Because the ALJ relied on the lack of deliberate intention to find that the accused products did not violate the ‘133 claim, the Court REVERSED and REMANDED the ‘133 non-infringement judgment. The ‘054 patent judgment was AFFIRMED, as was the determination that Microsoft failed to establish a domestic industry for the ‘376 and ‘762 patents.

Advanced Search