[This post continues the discussion of emergency stays pending appeal that was begun here]
i4i Ltd. v. Microsoft Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2009)
Pending Reexamination: Microsoft has submitted its motion for a stay of injunctive relief pending the outcome of its appeal to the Federal Circuit. Oddly, the first sentence of Microsoft's introduction begins with a statement that the PTO "already had provisionally rejected upon reexamination as anticipated and obvious." By 'provisionally rejected' Microsoft means that a non-final office action has been mailed out in the ex parte reexamination that it requested in November 2008 (the litigation was filed in March 2007).
The opening is odd because of its irrelevance. The vast majority of third party requests for ex parte reexaminations are granted (over 95%) and then 'provisionally' rejected (83% of those). That usual course is simply the beginning of a typically long reexamination process. Even amongst reexaminations that received a non-final rejection - most resulted in a reexamination certificate that confirmed the patentability of at least one original claim. Of course, the final resolution of the reexamination is likely years away. (The figures are based on my own study of 5,000 ex parte reexamination file histories).
The opening is also odd because, to my knowledge, the Federal Circuit has never placed any weight on the fact that a co-pending reexamination has been provisionally rejected.
Finally, the opening is odd because it does not relate to Microsoft's arguments for a stay. In particular, the company does not argue for a stay pending outcome of the reexamination. Microsoft does argue anticipation and obviousness, but those arguments are based on the district court claim construction. As discussed on Patently-O extensively last month, claim construction in court has no direct legal link with the claim construction used at the patent office during reexamination. [Link]
The reexamination request by Microsoft focuses on two prior art references: U.S. Patent No. 6,101,512 ("DeRose") is apparently 102(e) prior art because it was filed prior to i4i's application, and i4i is unable to antedate the reference and a published description of the "Rita" SGML editor. Both of these references were considered by the jury in its analysis. In addition, Judge Davis reviewed the jury determination and found no cause for a JNOV. Interestingly, Microsoft never moved for summary judgment on any of its invalidity arguments based on these references.
To be clear, Microsoft's brief is still well written and presents compelling arguments. The only problem is that its first argument may lead the court astray. A ruling is expected prior to the October 10.
Documents:
- Microsoft Motion for Emergency Stay: Download 2009-1504 [Note – A complete brief was due August 25, for that brief, Microsoft was granted permission to file an 18,000 word brief instead of the normal 14,000 word brief]
- Judge Davis Memorandum: Download 20090817i4imemo
- Documents from the Reexamination Download 90010347
Notes:
- An important aspect of this case from a policy perspective is that it the patent covers XML software whose function is to facilitate interoperability. The patent enforcement is looking largely block (or at least control) that function.
- As the role of reexaminations continue to rise as a litigation strategy, understanding the interplay and conflict between Federal Court decisions and USPTO decisions will become critical. Important questions involve: waiver; preclusion; and deference.
