// API callback
related_results_labels({"version":"1.0","encoding":"UTF-8","feed":{"xmlns":"http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom","xmlns$openSearch":"http://a9.com/-/spec/opensearchrss/1.0/","xmlns$blogger":"http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008","xmlns$georss":"http://www.georss.org/georss","xmlns$gd":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005","xmlns$thr":"http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0","id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6851300"},"updated":{"$t":"2023-11-05T06:06:12.071-06:00"},"category":[{"term":"USPTO"},{"term":"patent litigation"},{"term":"CAFC"},{"term":"patent reform"},{"term":"patent reform act of 2007"},{"term":"BPAI"},{"term":"continuation rule changes"},{"term":"obviousness"},{"term":"patentable subject matter; 35 USC 101"},{"term":"USPTO; continuation rule changes"},{"term":"patentable subject matter"},{"term":"inequitable conduct"},{"term":"KSR v. Teleflex"},{"term":"Bilski"},{"term":"KSR"},{"term":"claim construction"},{"term":"software patents"},{"term":"willful infringement"},{"term":"patent quality"},{"term":"EPO"},{"term":"FTC"},{"term":"Patent Refom Act"},{"term":"USPTO; patentable subject matter; 35 USC 101"},{"term":"double patenting"},{"term":"indefiniteness"},{"term":"patent licensing"},{"term":"innovation"},{"term":"inter partes reexamination; USPTO"},{"term":"sanctions"},{"term":"2007 patent reform"},{"term":"CAFC statistics"},{"term":"E.D. Texas"},{"term":"Ebay"},{"term":"Intellectual Ventures"},{"term":"Microsoft"},{"term":"Patent Troll Tracker"},{"term":"S.1145"},{"term":"WIPO"},{"term":"declaratory judgment"},{"term":"patent litigation; inequitable conduct"},{"term":"patent troll"},{"term":"35 USC 101"},{"term":"China"},{"term":"IDS Rule Changes"},{"term":"Leahy"},{"term":"Medimmune"},{"term":"Michel"},{"term":"PTO rule changes"},{"term":"Quanta"},{"term":"S. 1145"},{"term":"USPTO fees"},{"term":"divided infringement; patent litigation"},{"term":"doctrine of equivalents"},{"term":"end software patents"},{"term":"inventorship"},{"term":"joint infringement"},{"term":"patent damages"},{"term":"patent exhaustion"},{"term":"patent infringement"},{"term":"patent litigation; patent damages"},{"term":"patent litigation; patentable subject matter"},{"term":"patent litigation; willful infringement"},{"term":"patent policy"},{"term":"patent prosecution"},{"term":"patent searching"},{"term":"patent standardization"},{"term":"permanent injunction"},{"term":"prosecution history estoppel"},{"term":"reexamination"},{"term":"tafas"},{"term":"unintentional abandonment"},{"term":"110th Congress"},{"term":"35 USC 112"},{"term":"Alcatel"},{"term":"Berman"},{"term":"Congress"},{"term":"Dudas"},{"term":"Ex Parte Nehls USPTO"},{"term":"IEEE; patent portfolio"},{"term":"ITC"},{"term":"In Re Seagate"},{"term":"Infringement"},{"term":"LES"},{"term":"NPE"},{"term":"Nujten"},{"term":"OMB"},{"term":"Ocean Tomo"},{"term":"PCT"},{"term":"Patent Cafe"},{"term":"Rambus"},{"term":"SCOTUS"},{"term":"Supreme Court"},{"term":"USPTO; Appeal Brief Rule Changes"},{"term":"USPTO; BPAI"},{"term":"WIPO patent report 2008"},{"term":"antitrust"},{"term":"certificate of correction"},{"term":"district court delaware"},{"term":"eBay v. MercExchange; permanent injunction"},{"term":"enablement"},{"term":"ex parte appeal rule changes"},{"term":"ex parte reexamination"},{"term":"examination support document"},{"term":"false patent marking"},{"term":"glaxo litigation"},{"term":"inherency"},{"term":"injunction"},{"term":"inter partes reexamination"},{"term":"lobbying"},{"term":"motion to stay"},{"term":"niro"},{"term":"patent litigation financing"},{"term":"patent litigation;"},{"term":"patent litigation; NPE; trolls"},{"term":"patent litigation; Seagate"},{"term":"patent litigation; damages"},{"term":"patent litigation; indefiniteness"},{"term":"patent pools"},{"term":"patent statistics"},{"term":"patent valuation"},{"term":"patents"},{"term":"priority"},{"term":"tax patents"},{"term":"top patent filers"},{"term":"translogic"},{"term":"venue"},{"term":"written description"},{"term":"'069 Patent"},{"term":"200 letter"},{"term":"5\/25"},{"term":"AIPLA Model Patent Jury Instructions"},{"term":"AQS"},{"term":"ATI"},{"term":"ATT"},{"term":"AUTM annual report; technology transfer"},{"term":"Acumed"},{"term":"Adam Jaffe"},{"term":"Ampex"},{"term":"Apotex"},{"term":"Appeal"},{"term":"Aristocrat"},{"term":"AvaMed"},{"term":"BIO"},{"term":"BPAI. text search"},{"term":"BPAI; USPTO"},{"term":"BPAI; USPTO; Appeal Brief Rule Changes"},{"term":"BPMC"},{"term":"Becerra"},{"term":"Berman letter"},{"term":"Biomedino"},{"term":"BlueJ"},{"term":"CAFC; incorporation by reference"},{"term":"CAFC; means-plus-function; infringement"},{"term":"CAFC; safe harbor; Hatch-Waxman"},{"term":"CBT"},{"term":"CHI"},{"term":"CJ Asset Management"},{"term":"CLP"},{"term":"CSIRO"},{"term":"CWU Pilot Program"},{"term":"Cargill"},{"term":"Chicago IP Day"},{"term":"Citizens Against Government Waste"},{"term":"Cominskey"},{"term":"Commerce Department Letter"},{"term":"Common Application Format"},{"term":"Cross"},{"term":"Cybor"},{"term":"DTV patents; patent licensing; patent pools"},{"term":"Daiichi"},{"term":"Daniel Ravicher"},{"term":"Detkin"},{"term":"Dickson"},{"term":"DirecTV"},{"term":"Dystar"},{"term":"EON-Net"},{"term":"EchoStar"},{"term":"Edwards"},{"term":"Elbex Video"},{"term":"Eon"},{"term":"Ex Parte Letts"},{"term":"Federal Circuit"},{"term":"Federal Register"},{"term":"Festo"},{"term":"Finisar"},{"term":"Fisher-Price"},{"term":"Franklin Electric"},{"term":"Fulbright Jaworsky litigation survey; patent litigation"},{"term":"GPH"},{"term":"Genomic Research and Accessibility Act"},{"term":"Google Earth"},{"term":"HR 2365"},{"term":"Halliburton"},{"term":"Hatch"},{"term":"IAM"},{"term":"IP Australia"},{"term":"IP econonomics"},{"term":"IP investing"},{"term":"IP litigation; China"},{"term":"IP valuation"},{"term":"ISO"},{"term":"India"},{"term":"Innovation Alliance"},{"term":"Intellectual Property Prospector"},{"term":"JPO"},{"term":"John Love"},{"term":"Kennedy"},{"term":"Kolling"},{"term":"Korea"},{"term":"Leapfrog"},{"term":"LegalForce"},{"term":"LegalMetric"},{"term":"Lemley"},{"term":"Lemley Sampat"},{"term":"Lichtman"},{"term":"Litigation Survey 2007"},{"term":"Liu Sharon study"},{"term":"Loyola"},{"term":"M. Henry Heines"},{"term":"MDMA"},{"term":"Mark Myers"},{"term":"Marshall Phelps"},{"term":"MassMEDIC"},{"term":"McKesson"},{"term":"McNeil"},{"term":"Medtronic"},{"term":"MercExchange"},{"term":"Micron"},{"term":"Microsoft v. ATT"},{"term":"Monsanto"},{"term":"N-Data"},{"term":"NTP"},{"term":"Netcraft"},{"term":"OIRA"},{"term":"PCT filings 2006"},{"term":"POPA"},{"term":"PTO rumors"},{"term":"PWC Patent Litigation Study"},{"term":"Paice"},{"term":"Patent Advisory Committee"},{"term":"Patent Enforcement Team"},{"term":"Patent Focus Report"},{"term":"Patent Monkey"},{"term":"Patent Pendency"},{"term":"Patent for Business"},{"term":"Peer to Patent"},{"term":"Perrigo"},{"term":"Pharmastem"},{"term":"PowerOasis"},{"term":"Price Waterhouse Cooper"},{"term":"Priority Document Exchange"},{"term":"QPC"},{"term":"RFID"},{"term":"Reid"},{"term":"Representation"},{"term":"Reuning"},{"term":"Rule 8"},{"term":"SBS"},{"term":"SDNY"},{"term":"SRI International"},{"term":"SanDisk"},{"term":"Sarbanes-Oxley"},{"term":"Shabaz Crabb"},{"term":"Sherman Act"},{"term":"Skyline"},{"term":"SparkIP"},{"term":"State Street"},{"term":"Stephen Pinkos"},{"term":"Stryker"},{"term":"Suzanne Michel"},{"term":"Symbian"},{"term":"Syngenta"},{"term":"TGIP"},{"term":"Tech Policy Summit"},{"term":"Teleflex"},{"term":"Texas MP3 Technologies"},{"term":"The Resolution"},{"term":"Toyota"},{"term":"Twombly"},{"term":"UK-IPO"},{"term":"USPTO IDS Rule Changes"},{"term":"USPTO training"},{"term":"USPTO; IDS; Applicant Quality Submissions"},{"term":"USPTO; KSR Guidelines; continuation rule changes"},{"term":"USPTO; Peterlin"},{"term":"USPTO; flat goal of production"},{"term":"USPTO; patent litigation; presumption of validity"},{"term":"USPTO; reexaminations"},{"term":"USPTO; teleworking"},{"term":"Validity"},{"term":"ValueVest"},{"term":"Verizon"},{"term":"Vonage"},{"term":"W.D. Wisconsin"},{"term":"WIPO patent report 2007"},{"term":"WLAN"},{"term":"Walker Process"},{"term":"Waters Technologies"},{"term":"Wi-LAN; patent litigation"},{"term":"Woodlock"},{"term":"Yet2.com"},{"term":"accelerated examination"},{"term":"allison"},{"term":"allowance rates"},{"term":"anticipation"},{"term":"appointments"},{"term":"biotech"},{"term":"blackboard"},{"term":"calim construction"},{"term":"claim contruction"},{"term":"claim differentiation"},{"term":"claim preclusion"},{"term":"clustering"},{"term":"coalition for patent fairness"},{"term":"communit patent review"},{"term":"community review"},{"term":"convoyed sales"},{"term":"cost"},{"term":"declarations"},{"term":"deputy commissioner"},{"term":"desire2learn"},{"term":"district courts"},{"term":"economist"},{"term":"employee survey"},{"term":"equitable estoppel"},{"term":"ethernet"},{"term":"filing fees"},{"term":"final rule"},{"term":"first to file"},{"term":"foreign patent searches"},{"term":"fuel cell patents"},{"term":"gene patents"},{"term":"gsk"},{"term":"hardware"},{"term":"hedge funds"},{"term":"house hearings"},{"term":"indifiniteness"},{"term":"infringment"},{"term":"inter partes reexamination; Cooper Technologies; USPTO"},{"term":"interviews"},{"term":"inventor mobility; patents"},{"term":"kahaulelio-gregory"},{"term":"klemens"},{"term":"kop"},{"term":"kunin"},{"term":"laches"},{"term":"lawsuit"},{"term":"licensing"},{"term":"litigation"},{"term":"mann"},{"term":"media coverage"},{"term":"medical techniques"},{"term":"misconduct"},{"term":"mossinghoff"},{"term":"nanotubes"},{"term":"notice"},{"term":"oaths"},{"term":"offer for sale"},{"term":"open source"},{"term":"opposition"},{"term":"patent auctions"},{"term":"patent bounties"},{"term":"patent busting"},{"term":"patent disclaimer"},{"term":"patent harmonization"},{"term":"patent holdup"},{"term":"patent intelligence"},{"term":"patent intermediaries; Raymond Millen; Ron Laurie"},{"term":"patent litigation; Rule 11 sanctions"},{"term":"patent litigation; SDNY; Rule 11 sanctions"},{"term":"patent litigation; assignment"},{"term":"patent litigation; divided infringement"},{"term":"patent litigation; equitable estoppel"},{"term":"patent litigation; inter partes reexamination"},{"term":"patent litigation; reexamination"},{"term":"patent litigation; reexamination; willful infringement"},{"term":"patent litigaton"},{"term":"patent market"},{"term":"patent ownership"},{"term":"patent tools"},{"term":"pharma"},{"term":"pleadings"},{"term":"preliminary injunctions"},{"term":"presumption of validity"},{"term":"presumptions"},{"term":"prior art"},{"term":"private equity"},{"term":"privilege"},{"term":"product by process claims"},{"term":"prosecution history"},{"term":"rader"},{"term":"reasearch and development"},{"term":"recapture"},{"term":"reexamination; patent litigation"},{"term":"reissue"},{"term":"remand"},{"term":"representative claims"},{"term":"royalties"},{"term":"royalty stacking"},{"term":"sanctions. protective orders"},{"term":"senate"},{"term":"sovereign immunity"},{"term":"standing"},{"term":"statutory subject matter"},{"term":"stndardization groups"},{"term":"supplemental jurisdiction"},{"term":"thomson reuters patent study"},{"term":"top patent holders; USPTO"},{"term":"unextected results"},{"term":"vitiation"},{"term":"vuestar; patent litigation"},{"term":"waiver"},{"term":"webcast"},{"term":"world growth"}],"title":{"type":"text","$t":"The 271 Patent Blog"},"subtitle":{"type":"html","$t":"By Peter Zura"},"link":[{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#feed","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/271patent.blogspot.com\/feeds\/posts\/default"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/6851300\/posts\/default\/-\/Microsoft?alt=json-in-script\u0026max-results=5"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/271patent.blogspot.com\/search\/label\/Microsoft"},{"rel":"hub","href":"http://pubsubhubbub.appspot.com/"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"Two-Seventy-One Patent Blog"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/02481083706071978817"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"generator":{"version":"7.00","uri":"http://www.blogger.com","$t":"Blogger"},"openSearch$totalResults":{"$t":"4"},"openSearch$startIndex":{"$t":"1"},"openSearch$itemsPerPage":{"$t":"5"},"entry":[{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6851300.post-1347577535116349606"},"published":{"$t":"2007-08-07T08:27:00.001-05:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2007-08-07T09:28:40.762-05:00"},"category":[{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Alcatel"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Microsoft"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"patent litigation"}],"title":{"type":"text","$t":"$1.5B Verdict Against Microsoft Overturned, New Trial Granted"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"On January 29, 2007, a jury trial commenced on issues pertaining to audio coding patents U.S. Patent Nos. 5,341,457 and RE 39,080 (“the ‘457 patent” and “the ‘080 patent,” respectively). On February 22, 2007, the jury returned a verdict in favor of \u003Cspan class=\"blsp-spelling-error\" id=\"SPELLING_ERROR_0\"\u003ELucent\u003C\/span\u003E finding the patents valid and infringed by Microsoft. Damages were assessed at $1.54B dollars.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003EYesterday, in a 43-page opinion, Judge \u003Cspan class=\"blsp-spelling-error\" id=\"SPELLING_ERROR_1\"\u003ERudi\u003C\/span\u003E Brewster ruled on over 20 post-trial motions filed by Microsoft seeking to overturn the verdict, or to grant a new trial. On the issues of infringement and damages for the '457 patent, all motions were granted, With regard to the '080 patent, Microsoft's \u003Cspan class=\"blsp-spelling-error\" id=\"SPELLING_ERROR_2\"\u003EJMOL\u003C\/span\u003E for infringement was denied, but Judge Brewster held that, since \u003Cspan class=\"blsp-spelling-error\" id=\"SPELLING_ERROR_3\"\u003EFraunhofer\u003C\/span\u003E is a co-owner of the '080  patent, \u003Cspan class=\"blsp-spelling-error\" id=\"SPELLING_ERROR_4\"\u003ELucent\u003C\/span\u003E lacked standing to bring the action, and Microsoft's license defense insulated them from liability.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cstrong\u003E\u003Cem\u003EOwnership and License of the '080 Patent:\u003C\/em\u003E\u003C\/strong\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003EAmong the affirmative defenses raised by Microsoft, two related to the ownership of the ‘080 patent. Microsoft asserted that the ‘080 patent was co-owned by \u003Cspan class=\"blsp-spelling-error\" id=\"SPELLING_ERROR_5\"\u003EFraunhofer\u003C\/span\u003E \u003Cspan class=\"blsp-spelling-error\" id=\"SPELLING_ERROR_6\"\u003EGesellschaft\u003C\/span\u003E (“\u003Cspan class=\"blsp-spelling-error\" id=\"SPELLING_ERROR_7\"\u003EFraunhofer\u003C\/span\u003E”), a German research company. As such, Microsoft contended that \u003Cspan class=\"blsp-spelling-error\" id=\"SPELLING_ERROR_8\"\u003ELucent\u003C\/span\u003E lacked standing to bring suit against Microsoft for infringement of the ‘080patent. Microsoft also asserted the defense of license, contending that it had a license from \u003Cspan class=\"blsp-spelling-error\" id=\"SPELLING_ERROR_9\"\u003EFraunhofer\u003C\/span\u003E to practice the ‘080 patent.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003EUnder a 1989 research agreement between AT\u0026T and \u003Cspan class=\"blsp-spelling-error\" id=\"SPELLING_ERROR_10\"\u003EFraunhofer\u003C\/span\u003E (“the \u003Cspan class=\"blsp-spelling-error\" id=\"SPELLING_ERROR_11\"\u003EJDA\u003C\/span\u003E”), the \u003Cspan class=\"blsp-spelling-error\" id=\"SPELLING_ERROR_12\"\u003Ecourt\u003C\/span\u003E found that \u003Cspan class=\"blsp-spelling-error\" id=\"SPELLING_ERROR_13\"\u003EFraunhofer\u003C\/span\u003E was a co-owner of the ‘080 reissue patent, since the \u003Cspan class=\"blsp-spelling-error\" id=\"SPELLING_ERROR_14\"\u003EJDA\u003C\/span\u003E was never terminated:\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cblockquote\u003EThe \u003Cspan class=\"blsp-spelling-error\" id=\"SPELLING_ERROR_15\"\u003EJDA\u003C\/span\u003E between \u003Cspan class=\"blsp-spelling-error\" id=\"SPELLING_ERROR_16\"\u003EFraunhofer\u003C\/span\u003E and AT\u0026amp;T covered collaborative work during the period of the stay of \u003Cspan class=\"blsp-spelling-error\" id=\"SPELLING_ERROR_17\"\u003EKarlheinz\u003C\/span\u003E Brandenburg at AT\u0026T. This period began in April 1989 and ended in June 1990. All work done on digital audio coding during this period was classified as “New Work” and would be jointly owned by AT\u0026amp;T and \u003Cspan class=\"blsp-spelling-error\" id=\"SPELLING_ERROR_18\"\u003EFraunhofer\u003C\/span\u003E. In 1991, the period covering New Work was extended by AT\u0026T and \u003Cspan class=\"blsp-spelling-error\" id=\"SPELLING_ERROR_19\"\u003EFraunhofer\u003C\/span\u003E to cover work that continued after the expiration of the \u003Cspan class=\"blsp-spelling-error\" id=\"SPELLING_ERROR_20\"\u003EJDA\u003C\/span\u003E and the departure of Brandenburg. The parties agreed to extend the period indefinitely, until one of the parties gave notice to terminate the arrangement. No evidence was presented that the parties ever terminated the agreement. Hence, the combined effect of the \u003Cspan class=\"blsp-spelling-error\" id=\"SPELLING_ERROR_21\"\u003EJDA\u003C\/span\u003E and the extension letter defines the period of New Work as beginning in April 1989 at the arrival of Brandenburg and continuing indefinitely thereafter.\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003EInstead of partitioning the claims into separate applications, AT\u0026amp;T\/\u003Cspan class=\"blsp-spelling-error\" id=\"SPELLING_ERROR_22\"\u003ELucent\u003C\/span\u003E decided lump together \"New Work\" claims (which traced back to \u003Cspan class=\"blsp-spelling-error\" id=\"SPELLING_ERROR_23\"\u003EFraunhofer\u003C\/span\u003E) with separately-developed claims. The court found this fatal to \u003Cspan class=\"blsp-spelling-error\" id=\"SPELLING_ERROR_24\"\u003ELucent's\u003C\/span\u003E case:\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cblockquote\u003E[B]y filing claims to New Work in the same application as claims to Existing Technology, the patent is jointly owned by AT\u0026T and \u003Cspan class=\"blsp-spelling-error\" id=\"SPELLING_ERROR_25\"\u003EFraunhofer\u003C\/span\u003E. AT\u0026amp;T cannot cause \u003Cspan class=\"blsp-spelling-error\" id=\"SPELLING_ERROR_26\"\u003EFraunhofer\u003C\/span\u003E to forfeit its ownership rights to New Work simply by filing AT\u0026T’s Existing Technology in the same patent application. If anything is forfeited, it is AT\u0026amp;T’s rights to exclusive ownership of the entire ‘938 patent. AT\u0026T forfeited that right when it chose to file all four claims in one application. \u003Cspan class=\"blsp-spelling-error\" id=\"SPELLING_ERROR_27\"\u003ELucent\u003C\/span\u003E made a similar decision when it applied for the reissue that became the ‘080 patent and chose to keep claim four in the same application with claims one and three, all with one priority claim. The Court therefore FINDS that under the \u003Cspan class=\"blsp-spelling-error\" id=\"SPELLING_ERROR_28\"\u003EJDA\u003C\/span\u003E, the ‘938 patent and its reissue, the ‘080 patent, are jointly owned by AT\u0026amp;T and \u003Cspan class=\"blsp-spelling-error\" id=\"SPELLING_ERROR_29\"\u003EFraunhofer\u003C\/span\u003E.\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003ESince Microsoft had already obtained a license from \u003Cspan class=\"blsp-spelling-error\" id=\"SPELLING_ERROR_30\"\u003EFraunhofer\u003C\/span\u003E, \"Microsoft as a licensee cannot be liable for infringement of the ‘080 patent. 35 U.S.C. § 271.\"\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cstrong\u003E\u003Cem\u003EInfringement of the '457 Patent:\u003C\/em\u003E\u003C\/strong\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003EAccording to the court, there was no direct evidence that Microsoft's HQ encoder performed the patented methods presented at trial. Even \u003Cspan class=\"blsp-spelling-error\" id=\"SPELLING_ERROR_31\"\u003ELucent\u003C\/span\u003E’s expert testified that he had never observed the HQ encoder running, he had not made a CD encoded by the HQ encoder, and he could not explain how a user would select and run the HQ encoder. Instead, \u003Cspan class=\"blsp-spelling-error\" id=\"SPELLING_ERROR_32\"\u003ELucent\u003C\/span\u003E argues that its\u003Cbr \/\u003Eproof of infringement centered on circumstantial evidence that the HQ encoder would run automatically when the fast encoder failed and therefore carry out the claims of the ‘457 patent.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003EAfter reviewing the record, the court ruled that the circumstantial evidence was not enough to show infringement, since too much speculation existed over the actual operation of the HQ encoder:\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cblockquote\u003EIn essence, \u003Cspan class=\"blsp-spelling-error\" id=\"SPELLING_ERROR_33\"\u003ELucent\u003C\/span\u003E offered circumstantial evidence that proved at most that the HQ encoder was possibly \u003Cem\u003Ecapable\u003C\/em\u003E of running. What it failed to show, circumstantially or otherwise, was that HQ had actually ever run and performed the claimed method. This evidence is insufficient as a matter of law to demonstrate infringement of a methods claim. While \u003Cspan class=\"blsp-spelling-error\" id=\"SPELLING_ERROR_34\"\u003ELucent\u003C\/span\u003E argues that “the record was replete with evidence that the HQ encoder will be invoked as a result of common conditions that occur routinely in practice,” as the Federal Circuit noted in \u003Cem\u003EE-Pass Technologies, Inc. v. 3Com Corp\u003C\/em\u003E., 473 F.3d 1213, 1223 (Fed. Cir. 2007), if it was so common and so routine, certainly \u003Cspan class=\"blsp-spelling-error\" id=\"SPELLING_ERROR_35\"\u003ELucent\u003C\/span\u003E could have \u003Cspan class=\"blsp-spelling-error\" id=\"SPELLING_ERROR_36\"\u003Eintroduced evidence\u003C\/span\u003E of at least one instance where the HQ encoder had run.\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cstrong\u003E\u003Cem\u003E\u003Cspan class=\"blsp-spelling-error\" id=\"SPELLING_ERROR_37\"\u003EKSR\u003C\/span\u003E Changed Everything? Not Really:\u003C\/em\u003E\u003C\/strong\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003EMicrosoft tried dangling \u003Cspan class=\"blsp-spelling-error\" id=\"SPELLING_ERROR_38\"\u003EKSR\u003C\/span\u003E before the court, but Judge Brewster wouldn't bite:\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cblockquote\u003E[T]he Court is unpersuaded that \u003Cspan class=\"blsp-spelling-error\" id=\"SPELLING_ERROR_39\"\u003EKSR\u003C\/span\u003E’s “broad implications” warrant reopening discovery and searching for new prior art. Although Microsoft points out that this Court allowed reopening of discovery in Groups 4 and 5, the circumstances differ here. Groups 4 and 5 had not started trial before the \u003Cspan class=\"blsp-spelling-error\" id=\"SPELLING_ERROR_40\"\u003EKSR\u003C\/span\u003E ruling came out, whereas the Group 2 trial has been completed. Additionally, an examination of district court and Federal Circuit rulings on obviousness since the \u003Cspan class=\"blsp-spelling-error\" id=\"SPELLING_ERROR_41\"\u003EKSR\u003C\/span\u003E decision does not support Microsoft’s requested upheaval. In sum, Microsoft has not offered any meritorious reason why obviousness on the ‘080 patent should be re-tried or why the jury’s\u003Cbr \/\u003Everdict as to non-obviousness of the ‘080 patent was not support by sufficient evidence. Therefore, the motions for judgment as a matter of law and for a new trial on obviousness are DENIED.\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cstrong\u003E\u003Cem\u003EDamages and the Entire Market Value:\u003C\/em\u003E\u003C\/strong\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003EThe court found two major problems in applying the entire market value rule to \u003Cspan class=\"blsp-spelling-corrected\" id=\"SPELLING_ERROR_42\"\u003EMicrosoft\u003C\/span\u003E. The first was the failure of the evidence to establish a link between the cost of the computers (rather than the operating system, Windows Media Player, the MP3 \u003Cspan class=\"blsp-spelling-error\" id=\"SPELLING_ERROR_43\"\u003Ecodec\u003C\/span\u003E or some other “unit”) and the customer demand or value of the patented technology. The second \"and probably even more\u003Cbr \/\u003Etroublesome problem is the failure to establish that the patented features themselves produced any customer demand or value of the product.\"\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cblockquote\u003EHere, the Court finds no evidence adduced at trial that establishes that the patented features of either the ‘457 or the ‘080 patents were critical to MP3 or that they established the basis for the customer demand or value of MP3, let alone were critical or provided value to the whole computer. The evidence cited by \u003Cspan class=\"blsp-spelling-error\" id=\"SPELLING_ERROR_44\"\u003ELucent\u003C\/span\u003E from the trial record shows only that MP3 capabilities overall were a commercially important feature. According to \u003Cspan class=\"blsp-spelling-error\" id=\"SPELLING_ERROR_45\"\u003ELucent\u003C\/span\u003E’s expert Dr. \u003Cspan class=\"blsp-spelling-error\" id=\"SPELLING_ERROR_46\"\u003EJayant\u003C\/span\u003E, MP3 technology originated from many sources and the MP3 standard specifies many aspects of audio compression. Although \u003Cspan class=\"blsp-spelling-error\" id=\"SPELLING_ERROR_47\"\u003EJayant\u003C\/span\u003E pointed out what he considered important in the MP3, the key technology he identified related to the decoding of the bit stream syntax (which allows decoders from different manufactures to interpret and play back the audio signal); he did not identify either the invention of the ‘080 patent or the ‘457 patent as critical to MP3. Additionally, the evidence demonstrated that although the inventions of these patents could be used with the MP3 standard, they were not required or critical to practice the MP3 standard.\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cstrong\u003E\u003Cem\u003ERoyalty Rate:\u003C\/em\u003E\u003C\/strong\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003EWith regard to the royalty rate, the court denied Microsoft's \u003Cspan class=\"blsp-spelling-error\" id=\"SPELLING_ERROR_48\"\u003EJMOL\u003C\/span\u003E, but granted a new \u003Cspan class=\"blsp-spelling-corrected\" id=\"SPELLING_ERROR_49\"\u003Etrial\u003C\/span\u003E, noting that\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cblockquote\u003E[I]t is not so much that the jury lacked any evidence on which to base a reasonable royalty rate, but that the evidence provided limited guidance . . . although a plethora of licensing agreements were admitted into evidence, the majority of these which advocated a royalty rate in the 0.5% range lacked sufficient relevance to the technology at issue here, the relevant date of the hypothetical negotiation and\/or the scope of a license that would be negotiated between these parties.\u003C\/blockquote\u003EView\/download the opinion here (\u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/www.mediafire.com\/?83r9c1t1j4g\"\u003Elink\u003C\/a\u003E)."},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/271patent.blogspot.com\/feeds\/1347577535116349606\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment.g?blogID=6851300\u0026postID=1347577535116349606\u0026isPopup=true","title":"0 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/6851300\/posts\/default\/1347577535116349606"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/6851300\/posts\/default\/1347577535116349606"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/271patent.blogspot.com\/2007\/08\/15b-verdict-against-microsoft.html","title":"$1.5B Verdict Against Microsoft Overturned, New Trial Granted"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"Two-Seventy-One Patent Blog"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/02481083706071978817"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"thr$total":{"$t":"0"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6851300.post-3978219097327412768"},"published":{"$t":"2007-04-10T07:58:00.000-05:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2007-04-10T08:42:18.613-05:00"},"category":[{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Microsoft"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"patent litigation"}],"title":{"type":"text","$t":"Taking a Peek Inside Microsoft's Patent Litigation Department"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"\u003Cp\u003ELike many other corporations, Microsoft is looking to beef up its legal department, and is currently seeking a patent litigation attorney to join its staff in Redmond Washington.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003EMicrosoft is so keen on advertising this position that they recently gave access to \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/www.ipww.com\/\"\u003EIP Law \u0026 Business\u003C\/a\u003E to give a little background on their patent department: \u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cblockquote\u003E\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\u003Cblockquote\u003E\u003Cp\u003E• In 1998, Microsoft had less than a dozen patents. Today, that number exceeds 5,000. \u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E• Over the past five years, Microsoft has been a defendant in 96 patent cases. In most of those cases, Microsoft describes the plaintiffs as \"patent trolls.\" Over the same time period, Microsoft was a plaintiff in 11 cases. \u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E• Microsoft's current docket has 40 pending patent cases - 15 of them are in the E.D. Texas.\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E• Patent litigation is approaching half of the company's legal fees. According to Thomas Burt, Microsoft's corporate vice president and deputy general counsel for litigation, \"If you measure it by how much we spend on outside counsel in any given year, 40 percent-plus is patent litigation, 40 percent-plus antitrust, and the rest is everything else.\" \u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E• Microsoft's in-house patent litigation team is headed by Andrew Culbert, associate general counsel, and has a staff of three patent trial lawyers and three paralegals. \u003C\/p\u003E\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\u003Cp\u003ERead \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/www.law.com\/jsp\/article.jsp?id=1175850243704\u0026pos=ataglance\"\u003EInside the Microsoft War Room\u003C\/a\u003E from Law.com\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003ESubmit your resume to Microsoft \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/members.microsoft.com\/careers\/search\/details.aspx?JobID=D3EC5C84-30EE-4D2D-B449-B1C823F0E84C\u0026amp;start=11\u0026interval=10\u0026amp;SortCol=DatePosted\u0026amp;SortOrder=\"\u003Ehere\u003C\/a\u003E.\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cblockquote\u003E\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\u003Cblockquote\u003E\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\u003Cblockquote\u003E\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\u003Cblockquote\u003E\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\u003Cblockquote\u003E\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\u003Cblockquote\u003E\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\u003Cp\u003EFunny quote on Microsoft's job page from a staff attorney: \"You know that long string of legal text that pops up when you first start up your system? The one you probably never read? I wrote that!\" \u003C\/p\u003E"},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/271patent.blogspot.com\/feeds\/3978219097327412768\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment.g?blogID=6851300\u0026postID=3978219097327412768\u0026isPopup=true","title":"1 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/6851300\/posts\/default\/3978219097327412768"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/6851300\/posts\/default\/3978219097327412768"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/271patent.blogspot.com\/2007\/04\/taking-peek-inside-microsofts-patent.html","title":"Taking a Peek Inside Microsoft's Patent Litigation Department"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"Two-Seventy-One Patent Blog"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/02481083706071978817"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"thr$total":{"$t":"1"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6851300.post-2681178398789085783"},"published":{"$t":"2007-02-26T09:20:00.000-06:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2007-02-26T12:46:12.459-06:00"},"category":[{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Alcatel"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Microsoft"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Texas MP3 Technologies"}],"title":{"type":"text","$t":"MP3's, Patents and Lawsuits, Oh My!"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"By now, everyone has \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/lawfuel.com\/show-release.asp?ID=10829\"\u003Eheard\u003C\/a\u003E about \u003Cspan class=\"blsp-spelling-error\" id=\"SPELLING_ERROR_0\"\u003EAlcatel\u003C\/span\u003E-\u003Cspan class=\"blsp-spelling-error\" id=\"SPELLING_ERROR_1\"\u003ELucent's\u003C\/span\u003E stunning $1.5 billion verdict handed down last week in the Southern District of California (to view a copy of the jury \u003Cspan class=\"blsp-spelling-corrected\" id=\"SPELLING_ERROR_2\"\u003Everdict\u003C\/span\u003E, click \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/www.filesend.net\/download.php?f=08242c309ee86f489cf02b7da54b963d\"\u003Ehere\u003C\/a\u003E). Over the weekend, I've gotten e-mails from readers giving updates and asking for more details on the case to find out which patents were involved in the verdict.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cstrong\u003E\u003Cem\u003E\u003Cspan class=\"blsp-spelling-error\" id=\"SPELLING_ERROR_3\"\u003EAlcatel\u003C\/span\u003E-\u003Cspan class=\"blsp-spelling-error\" id=\"SPELLING_ERROR_4\"\u003ELucent\u003C\/span\u003E Patents\u003C\/em\u003E\u003C\/strong\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003EThe jury found infringement on claims 1, 3, and 4 of reissue patent \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/patft.uspto.gov\/netacgi\/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1\u0026Sect2=HITOFF\u0026amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;d=PALL\u0026p=1\u0026amp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm\u0026r=1\u0026amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;f=G\u0026l=50\u0026amp;s1=RE39,080.PN.\u0026OS=PN\/RE39,080\u0026amp;RS=PN\/RE39,080\"\u003ERE39,080\u003C\/a\u003E (\"Rate loop processor for perceptual encoder\/decoder \"), and claims 1, 5, and 10 of U.S. patent \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/patft.uspto.gov\/netacgi\/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1\u0026Sect2=HITOFF\u0026amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;d=PALL\u0026p=1\u0026amp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm\u0026r=1\u0026amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;f=G\u0026l=50\u0026amp;s1=5,341,457.PN.\u0026OS=PN\/5,341,457\u0026amp;RS=PN\/5,341,457\"\u003E5,341,457\u003C\/a\u003E (\"Perceptual coding of audio signals\").\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003EClaim 1 of the '080 patent reads as follows:\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cblockquote\u003E\u003Cp\u003E1. A method of coding an audio signal comprising:\u003Cbr \/\u003E(a) converting a time domain representation of the audio signal into a frequency domain representation of the audio signal, the frequency domain representation comprising a set of frequency coefficients; \u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E(b) calculating a masking threshold based upon the set of frequency coefficients; \u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E(c) using a rate loop processor in an iterative fashion to determine a set of quantization step size coefficients for use in encoding the set of frequency coefficients, said set of quantization step size coefficients determined by using the masking threshold and an absolute hearing threshold; and \u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E(d) coding the set of frequency coefficients based upon the set of quantization step size coefficients. \u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E \u003C\/p\u003E\u003C\/blockquote\u003EClaim 1 of the '457 patent reads as follows:\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cblockquote\u003E\u003Cp\u003E1. A method of processing an ordered time sequence of audio signals partitioned into a set of ordered blocks, each said block having a discrete frequency spectrum comprising a first set of frequency coefficients, the method comprising, for each of said blocks, the steps of: \u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E(a) grouping said first set of frequency coefficients into at least one group, each group comprising at least one frequency coefficient; \u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E(b) generating at least one tonality value, each group having an associated tonality value, said at least one tonality value reflecting the degree to which said time sequence of audio signals comprises tone-like quality; \u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E(c) generating at least one noise masking threshold, each said at least one noise masking threshold being based upon at least a portion of said at least one tonality value; and \u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E(d) \u003Cspan class=\"blsp-spelling-error\" id=\"SPELLING_ERROR_5\"\u003Equantizing\u003C\/span\u003E at least one frequency coefficient in said at least one group, said \u003Cspan class=\"blsp-spelling-error\" id=\"SPELLING_ERROR_6\"\u003Equantizing\u003C\/span\u003E based upon said at least one noise masking threshold.\u003C\/p\u003E\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\u003Cstrong\u003E\u003Cem\u003EThe \u003Cspan class=\"blsp-spelling-error\" id=\"SPELLING_ERROR_7\"\u003EFraunhofer\u003C\/span\u003E\/Thomson Patents\u003C\/em\u003E\u003C\/strong\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003EMicrosoft was spared from \u003Cspan class=\"blsp-spelling-error\" id=\"SPELLING_ERROR_8\"\u003Ewillfull\u003C\/span\u003E infringement, in large part, because they had joined the rest of the industry in taking a license from notorious \u003Cspan class=\"blsp-spelling-error\" id=\"SPELLING_ERROR_9\"\u003EFraunhofer\u003C\/span\u003E\/Thomson portfolio of MP3 patents. \u003Cspan class=\"blsp-spelling-error\" id=\"SPELLING_ERROR_10\"\u003EAlcatel\u003C\/span\u003E-\u003Cspan class=\"blsp-spelling-error\" id=\"SPELLING_ERROR_11\"\u003ELucent\u003C\/span\u003E successfully argued that the '080 and '457 patents were not covered by the license. To view the list of patents from the \u003Cspan class=\"blsp-spelling-error\" id=\"SPELLING_ERROR_12\"\u003EFraunhofer\u003C\/span\u003E\/Thomson portfolio, click \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/mp3licensing.com\/patents\/index.html\"\u003Ehere\u003C\/a\u003E.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cstrong\u003E\u003Cem\u003ETexas MP3 Technologies taking on MP3?\u003C\/em\u003E\u003C\/strong\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003EWord has also\u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/www.infoworld.com\/article\/07\/02\/26\/HNmp3lawsuits_1.html\"\u003E spread\u003C\/a\u003E about the company Texas MP3 Technologies, Ltd. (which apparently has no web presence), and their lawsuit against Apple, \u003Cspan class=\"blsp-spelling-error\" id=\"SPELLING_ERROR_13\"\u003ESamsung\u003C\/span\u003E, and \u003Cspan class=\"blsp-spelling-error\" id=\"SPELLING_ERROR_14\"\u003ESandisk\u003C\/span\u003E over U.S. Patent 7,065,417 (\"\u003Cspan class=\"blsp-spelling-error\" id=\"SPELLING_ERROR_15\"\u003EMPEG\u003C\/span\u003E portable sound reproducing system and a reproducing method thereof \"). Being true it its namesake, the plaintiff launched the suit in the E.D. Texas (2-07\u003Cspan class=\"blsp-spelling-error\" id=\"SPELLING_ERROR_16\"\u003Ecv\u003C\/span\u003E-052).\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003EThe patent issued in June 2006, and has experienced a winding ownership path from \u003Cspan class=\"blsp-spelling-error\" id=\"SPELLING_ERROR_17\"\u003ESigmatel\u003C\/span\u003E to Texas MP3 Technologies (view assignment records \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/assignments.uspto.gov\/assignments\/q?db=pat\u0026qt=pat\u0026amp;amp;reel=\u0026frame=\u0026amp;pat=7065417\u0026pub=\u0026amp;asnr=\u0026asnri=\u0026amp;asne=\u0026asnei=\u0026amp;asns=\"\u003Ehere\u003C\/a\u003E). When announcing the sale of the patent, \u003Cspan class=\"blsp-spelling-error\" id=\"SPELLING_ERROR_18\"\u003ESigmatel\u003C\/span\u003E \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/www.infoworld.com\/article\/07\/02\/26\/HNmp3lawsuits_1.html\"\u003Estated\u003C\/a\u003E that \"[b]\u003Cspan class=\"blsp-spelling-error\" id=\"SPELLING_ERROR_19\"\u003Eecause\u003C\/span\u003E these are such basic patents to digital music, we believe it will be difficult to design around these patents and have a commercially viable player.\"\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003EYou be the judge:\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cblockquote\u003E\u003Cp\u003E1. A portable audio device suitable for reproducing \u003Cspan class=\"blsp-spelling-error\" id=\"SPELLING_ERROR_20\"\u003EMPEG\u003C\/span\u003E encoded data, the\u003Cbr \/\u003Eportable audio device comprising: \u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003Ea plurality of inputs, including a forward input, a reverse input, a play control input, and a random input; \u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003Ea non-removable data storage to store compressed digitized audio data; \u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003Ea display; \u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003Ean audio output; \u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003Eat least one processor, responsive to selection of at least one of the plurality of inputs, to convert selected compressed digitized audio data stored in the non-removable data storage for reproduction by the audio output and to provide information to the display; \u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003Ea battery; \u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003Eand wherein, when a first selection of compressed digitized audio data is being reproduced, the display provides at least one of the first selection's title, type, remaining playtime, and reproduction time; \u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003Ewherein, when a second selection of compressed digitized audio data is being reproduced and in response to selection of the forward input for a first amount of time, the portable audio device advances to another selection of compressed digitized audio data; \u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003Ewherein, when a third selection of compressed digitized audio data is being reproduced, in response to selection of the reverse input for a second amount of time, the portable audio device begins playing the third selection from a beginning of the third selection of compressed digitized audio data; \u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003Ewherein, when a fourth selection of compressed digitized audio data is being reproduced, in response to selection of the play control input, the portable audio device stops playing the fourth selection of compressed digitized audio data; \u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003Ewherein, in response to selection of the random input, the portable audio device reproduces selections of the compressed digitized audio data stored in the non-removable data storage in a random order; and \u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003Ewherein, when the portable audio device is in a selected mode of operation and a voltage of the battery falls below a selected level, the display provides an indication relating to a power level of the battery.\u003C\/p\u003E\u003C\/blockquote\u003ETo view a copy of the complaint, click \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/www.filesend.net\/download.php?f=b762905b92e28b5b96cf72a246f61ef1\"\u003Ehere\u003C\/a\u003E."},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/271patent.blogspot.com\/feeds\/2681178398789085783\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment.g?blogID=6851300\u0026postID=2681178398789085783\u0026isPopup=true","title":"0 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/6851300\/posts\/default\/2681178398789085783"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/6851300\/posts\/default\/2681178398789085783"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/271patent.blogspot.com\/2007\/02\/mp3s-patents-and-lawsuits-oh-my.html","title":"MP3's, Patents and Lawsuits, Oh My!"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"Two-Seventy-One Patent Blog"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/02481083706071978817"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"thr$total":{"$t":"0"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6851300.post-1916556290116358686"},"published":{"$t":"2007-01-30T10:33:00.000-06:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2007-01-30T12:05:12.218-06:00"},"category":[{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"BlueJ"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"community review"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Kolling"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Microsoft"}],"title":{"type":"text","$t":"Ad Hoc \"Community Patent Review\" (and Blogs) Claims Microsoft Software Patent"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"\u003Cp\u003EMichael \u003Cspan class=\"blsp-spelling-error\" id=\"SPELLING_ERROR_0\" onclick=\"BLOG_clickHandler(this)\"\u003EKölling\u003C\/span\u003E is credited as being one of the creators of \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/BlueJ\"\u003E\u003Cspan class=\"blsp-spelling-error\" id=\"SPELLING_ERROR_1\" onclick=\"BLOG_clickHandler(this)\"\u003EBlueJ\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E, an integrated development environment designed for teaching beginners how to program. It's based on an earlier language called Blue, which he, \u003Cspan class=\"blsp-spelling-error\" id=\"SPELLING_ERROR_2\" onclick=\"BLOG_clickHandler(this)\"\u003EBett\u003C\/span\u003E Koch, and John Rosenberg came up with in 1994. \u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003Cspan class=\"blsp-spelling-error\" id=\"SPELLING_ERROR_3\" onclick=\"BLOG_clickHandler(this)\"\u003EBlueJ\u003C\/span\u003E was developed to support the learning and teaching of object-oriented programming, and its design differs from other development environments. A main screen graphically shows the class structure of an application under development (in a \u003Cspan class=\"blsp-spelling-error\" id=\"SPELLING_ERROR_4\" onclick=\"BLOG_clickHandler(this)\"\u003EUML\u003C\/span\u003E-like diagram), and objects can be interactively created and tested. One of the fundamental features of the system is an interactive way to instantiate and invoke objects called the \"Object Bench\". \u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003EIn May 2005, \u003Cspan class=\"blsp-spelling-error\" id=\"SPELLING_ERROR_5\" onclick=\"BLOG_clickHandler(this)\"\u003EKölling\u003C\/span\u003E noticed that Microsoft's \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Microsoft_Visual_Studio\"\u003EVisual Studio\u003C\/a\u003E had added a new feature they called \"Object Test Bench\" which looked very similar to what \u003Cspan class=\"blsp-spelling-error\" id=\"SPELLING_ERROR_6\" onclick=\"BLOG_clickHandler(this)\"\u003EKölling\u003C\/span\u003E had developed earlier. This information came to \u003Cspan class=\"blsp-spelling-error\" id=\"SPELLING_ERROR_7\" onclick=\"BLOG_clickHandler(this)\"\u003EKölling's\u003C\/span\u003E attention as a result of a \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/blogs.msdn.com\/danielfe\/archive\/2005\/06\/14\/428973.aspx\"\u003Eblog entry\u003C\/a\u003E by Dan Fernandez, Lead Product Manager of Visual Studio Express, which basically admitted that developers were \"inspired\" by \u003Cspan class=\"blsp-spelling-error\" id=\"SPELLING_ERROR_8\" onclick=\"BLOG_clickHandler(this)\"\u003EBlueJ\u003C\/span\u003E. While \u003Cspan class=\"blsp-spelling-error\" id=\"SPELLING_ERROR_9\" onclick=\"BLOG_clickHandler(this)\"\u003EKölling\u003C\/span\u003E did not object to the use of the technology, he expressed in a separate \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/www.bluej.org\/vs\/vs-bj.html\"\u003Eblog entry\u003C\/a\u003E that \u003Cspan class=\"blsp-spelling-corrected\" id=\"SPELLING_ERROR_10\"\u003Eattribution\u003C\/span\u003E should have been given to the creators of this software.\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003ELo and behold, \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/www.crn.com\/sections\/software\/software.jhtml?articleId=197001090\"\u003Eword got out\u003C\/a\u003E that, on October 20, 2005, Microsoft filed for a patent application titled \"Object test bench\" (US Publication \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/appft1.uspto.gov\/netacgi\/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2\u0026Sect2=HITOFF\u0026amp;p=1\u0026u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html\u0026amp;amp;amp;amp;r=1\u0026f=G\u0026amp;l=50\u0026co1=AND\u0026amp;d=PG01\u0026s1=20060101406.PGNR.\u0026amp;OS=DN\/20060101406\u0026amp;RS=DN\/20060101406\"\u003E2006\/0101406\u003C\/a\u003E), which covered this same technology. Needless to say, the open-source community became enraged, and started mobilizing a campaign to stop the application.\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003EOne of the companies that was contacted was Sun \u003Cspan class=\"blsp-spelling-error\" id=\"SPELLING_ERROR_11\" onclick=\"BLOG_clickHandler(this)\"\u003EMicrosystems\u003C\/span\u003E. \u003Cspan class=\"blsp-spelling-error\" id=\"SPELLING_ERROR_12\" onclick=\"BLOG_clickHandler(this)\"\u003EBlueJ\u003C\/span\u003E is a cross platform program, and uses Sun’s Java Programming Language. After reviewing the application, Simon Phipps, chief open source officer at Sun \u003Cspan class=\"blsp-spelling-error\" id=\"SPELLING_ERROR_13\" onclick=\"BLOG_clickHandler(this)\"\u003EMicrosystems\u003C\/span\u003E, labeled the patent attempt as \"disgusting\" and created a blog entry of his own, \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/www.bluej.org\/mrt\/?p=21\"\u003Edisparaging\u003C\/a\u003E the application.\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003Cspan class=\"blsp-spelling-error\" id=\"SPELLING_ERROR_14\" onclick=\"BLOG_clickHandler(this)\"\u003EKölling's\u003C\/span\u003E blog then began exploding - his blog entry made the front pages of \u003Cspan class=\"blsp-spelling-error\" id=\"SPELLING_ERROR_15\" onclick=\"BLOG_clickHandler(this)\"\u003Edigg\u003C\/span\u003E, slashdot, \u003Cspan class=\"blsp-spelling-error\" id=\"SPELLING_ERROR_16\" onclick=\"BLOG_clickHandler(this)\"\u003Ereddit\u003C\/span\u003E and del.icio.us. The article had more than 40,000 hits in just over 24 hours. It wasn't long before the word got back to Jason \u003Cspan class=\"blsp-spelling-error\" id=\"SPELLING_ERROR_17\" onclick=\"BLOG_clickHandler(this)\"\u003EMatusow\u003C\/span\u003E, Sr. Director of \u003Cspan class=\"blsp-spelling-error\" id=\"SPELLING_ERROR_18\" onclick=\"BLOG_clickHandler(this)\"\u003EIP\u003C\/span\u003E and Interoperability at Microsoft.\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003ETo Microsoft's credit, they acted quickly to diffuse the situation. Late yesterday, Microsoft \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/blogs.zdnet.com\/Burnette\/?p=246\"\u003Eannounced\u003C\/a\u003E that the patent application would officially be dropped, and that the filing of the application was the result of an error. According to \u003Cspan class=\"blsp-spelling-error\" id=\"SPELLING_ERROR_19\" onclick=\"BLOG_clickHandler(this)\"\u003EMatusow\u003C\/span\u003E, there was a \u003Cspan class=\"blsp-spelling-error\" id=\"SPELLING_ERROR_20\" onclick=\"BLOG_clickHandler(this)\"\u003Emiscommunication\u003C\/span\u003E between the researchers and the lawyers, and as a result the application was submitted for Object Bench itself instead of the surrounding code that Microsoft created. As for the conspiracy theorists that claimed that the application was part of a larger \"patent grab\" by Microsoft, \u003Cspan class=\"blsp-spelling-error\" id=\"SPELLING_ERROR_21\" onclick=\"BLOG_clickHandler(this)\"\u003EMatusow\u003C\/span\u003E responded, saying \"[t]hat doesn't make any sense . . . there's no logic to it. Why would you patent something in a space where you know there is prior art? There would be litigation, and you would know you couldn't be successful.\" \u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003EIn the end, everyone seemed happy with the outcome, and this case provides a good example of how \"community review\" of patent applications can benefit patent applicants and the public-at-large. Another interesting aspect of all this is a newly-apparent appreciation by all parties of the power of blogs. According to \u003Cspan class=\"blsp-spelling-error\" id=\"SPELLING_ERROR_22\" onclick=\"BLOG_clickHandler(this)\"\u003EMatusow\u003C\/span\u003E, Microsoft has over 3000 \u003Cspan class=\"blsp-spelling-error\" id=\"SPELLING_ERROR_23\" onclick=\"BLOG_clickHandler(this)\"\u003Ebloggers\u003C\/span\u003E, which helped improve the quickness of the response. In his mind, this incident only \"strengthens the case for customer-facing blogs.\"\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003ESee Ed Burnett's excellent blog coverage of this issue \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/blogs.zdnet.com\/Burnette\/?p=245\"\u003Ehere\u003C\/a\u003E and \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/blogs.zdnet.com\/Burnette\/?p=246\"\u003Ehere\u003C\/a\u003E.\u003C\/p\u003E"},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/271patent.blogspot.com\/feeds\/1916556290116358686\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment.g?blogID=6851300\u0026postID=1916556290116358686\u0026isPopup=true","title":"0 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/6851300\/posts\/default\/1916556290116358686"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/6851300\/posts\/default\/1916556290116358686"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/271patent.blogspot.com\/2007\/01\/ad-hoc-community-patent-review-and.html","title":"Ad Hoc \"Community Patent Review\" (and Blogs) Claims Microsoft Software Patent"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"Two-Seventy-One Patent Blog"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/02481083706071978817"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"thr$total":{"$t":"0"}}]}});