Alcatel-lucent v. microsoft

District Judge Rudi Brewster , granted Microsoft's motions for Judgment as a matter of law JMOL and for new trial, saying that the jury's decision was not supported by the evidence. The Judge's Order [11] found that there was insufficient evidence both for Microsoft's liability and for the damages model used by Alcatel-Lucent. Alcatel-Lucent appealed the judge's decision, [12] and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit heard oral arguments in July The Court of Appeals published its decision [13] on September 25, , upholding the dismissal of the case by Judge Brewster on two grounds.

The court held that Fraunhofer was a joint developer and thus co-owner of one patent, which meant that Lucent lacked standing to sue.

The other patent was not infringed because Lucent failed to show that the patented algorithm was ever used by Microsoft's products. A week after the first jury verdict, on March 2, Judge Brewster granted summary judgment in the second part of the case that Microsoft had not violated Alcatel-Lucent's patents relating to speech recognition, and the case was therefore dismissed before going to trial.

Alcatel-Lucent stated that it intended to appeal. The trial in the third part of the San Diego case involved four patents. In the fourth San Diego case, the jury issued its verdict on June 2, This time both Microsoft and Lucent were asserting that the other side was infringing its patents. The jury found that Lucent did not infringe Microsoft's patents and one patent was invalid and that Microsoft's Xbox did not infringe Lucent's patent.

In November , Microsoft and Alcatel-Lucent announced they had agreed to settle of most of the patent litigation between the companies. In the years following his departure from MP3. He is also founder of OnRad. The company was founded in by Dr. While the company has been labeled as a patent troll by accused infringers of those patents, this narrative has been characterized by recent commentators as political propaganda by big-tech, since Eolas was created at the request of UCSF, and was founded by the inventors on the university's patents.

SCO v. SCO sought to have the court declare that SCO owned the rights to the Unix code, including the copyrights, and that Novell had committed slander of title by claiming those rights for itself.

NTP, Inc. Campana Jr. The company's primary asset is a portfolio of 50 US patents and additional pending US and international patent applications. These patents and patent applications disclose inventions in the fields of wireless email and RF Antenna design.

The named inventors include Andrew Andros and Thomas Campana. About half of the US patents were originally assigned to Telefind Corporation, a Florida-based company partly owned by Campana. The multinational technology corporation Apple Inc. In particular, Apple is known for and promotes itself as actively and aggressively enforcing its intellectual property interests. From the s to the present, Apple has been plaintiff or defendant in civil actions in the United States and other countries.

Some of these actions have determined significant case law for the information technology industry and many have captured the attention of the public and media. Apple's litigation generally involves intellectual property disputes, but the company has also been a party in lawsuits that include antitrust claims, consumer actions, commercial unfair trade practice suits, defamation claims, and corporate espionage, among other matters.

Uniloc Corporation is a patent assertion entity founded in Australia in that develops "try and buy" software distributed via magazines and preinstalled on new computers. Alcatel-Lucent S. It was formed in by the merger of France-based Alcatel and U. Microsoft has been involved in numerous high-profile legal matters that involved litigation over the history of the company, including cases against the United States, the European Union, and competitors.

Vringo was a technology company that became involved in the worldwide patent wars. The company won a intellectual property lawsuit against Google, in which a U. District Court ordered Google to pay 1. AdWords sales. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit overturned the District Court's ruling on appeal in August in a split decision, which Intellectual Asset Magazine called "the most troubling case of The high profile nature of the intellectual property suits filed by the firm against large corporations known for anti-patent tendencies has led some commentators to refer to the firm as a patent vulture or patent troll.

Certain patents at issue were:. Patent No. Hall and James D. Filed: August 20, Granted: August 23, [5]. Reissue Patent No. Filed: August 13, Reissue of Filed: Sep. The first part of the San Diego case involved the ' and ' audio coding patents. Testimony was given by inventors James Johnston and Joseph Hall. Karlheinz Brandenburg , who worked with Johnston at Bell Labs. Subsequently, on August 6, the federal judge in San Diego, U.

District Judge Rudi Brewster , granted Microsoft's motions for Judgment as a matter of law JMOL and for new trial, saying that the jury's decision was not supported by the evidence. The Judge's Order [10] found that there was insufficient evidence both for Microsoft's liability and for the damages model used by Alcatel-Lucent. Alcatel-Lucent appealed the judge's decision, [11] and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit heard oral arguments in July The Court of Appeals published its decision [12] on September 25, , upholding the dismissal of the case by Judge Brewster on two grounds.

The court held that Fraunhofer was a joint developer and thus co-owner of one patent, which meant that Lucent lacked standing to sue. The other patent was not infringed because Lucent failed to show that the patented algorithm was ever used by Microsoft's products. A week after the first jury verdict, on March 2, Judge Brewster granted summary judgment in the second part of the case that Microsoft had not violated Alcatel-Lucent's patents relating to speech recognition, and the case was therefore dismissed before going to trial.

Alcatel-Lucent stated that it intended to appeal. The trial in the third part of the San Diego case involved four patents. In the fourth San Diego case, the jury issued its verdict on June 2, Reissue Patent No.

Filed: August 13, Reissue of Filed: Sep. The first part of the San Diego case involved the ' and ' audio coding patents. Testimony was given by inventors James Johnston and Joseph Hall. Karlheinz Brandenburg , who worked with Johnston at Bell Labs. Subsequently, on August 6, the federal judge in San Diego, U.

District Judge Rudi Brewster, granted Microsoft's motions for Judgment and for new trial, saying that the jury's decision was not supported by the evidence. The Judge's Order [10] found that there was insufficient evidence both for Microsoft's liability and for the damages model used by Alcatel-Lucent. Alcatel-Lucent appealed the judge's decision, [11] and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit heard oral arguments in July The Court of Appeals published its decision [12] on September 25, , upholding the dismissal of the case by Judge Brewster on two grounds.

The court held that Fraunhofer was a joint developer and thus co-owner of one patent, which made Lucent lack standing to sue.

The other patent was not infringed because Lucent failed to show that the accused algorithm was ever used. A week after the first jury verdict, on March 2, Judge Brewster ruled in the second part of the case that Microsoft had not violated Alcatel-Lucent's patents relating to speech recognition and the case was therefore dismissed before going to trial. Alcatel-Lucent stated that it intends to appeal. The trial in the third part of the San Diego case involved four patents.

In the fourth San Diego case, the jury issued its verdict on June 2,