Font Size: 
Federal Judge Tosses Out $388 Million Patent Verdict Against Microsoft
The American Lawyer
October 01, 2009
When The Am Law Litigation Daily featured Paul Hayes of Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo as its Litigator of the Week last April, after he won a $388 million patent infringement verdict against Microsoft, we warned that he'd better not start spending his contingency fee yet. Microsoft, we noted, has an unbelievably impressive track record when it comes to overturning adverse jury verdicts.
That record is now more impressive than ever, at the expense of Hayes and his client, Irvine, Calif.-based Uniloc USA. On Tuesday, in a thorough, 66-page ruling, Rhode Island federal district court Judge William Smith ruled that, as a matter of law, Microsoft did not infringe Uniloc's patent on a method of limiting unlicensed use of software through casual copying. He vacated the $388 million jury verdict and entered judgment for Microsoft, which was represented at trial and in post-trial briefing by a Fish & Richardson team led by Frank Scherkenbach.
Smith essentially concluded that the jury did not understand the highly complex technical evidence both sides presented. "The Court has reviewed the transcripts and evidence with painstaking detail in the light most favorable to Uniloc, careful not to act as the eleventh juror," he wrote. "What remains is a firm belief (indeed a certitude) that the jury 'lacked a grasp of the issues before it' and reached a finding without a legally sufficient basis."
The judge also rejected the jury's verdict that Microsoft had willfully infringed Uniloc's patent.
The only good news for Uniloc, which says it plans to appeal, was Smith's decision not to declare its patent invalid.
We called Hayes, who was unavailable for comment, and left a message for his partners at Mintz Levin but didn't hear back. Through a spokesperson, Fish & Richardson declined to comment; Microsoft gave us a statement saying the company is pleased with the ruling.
The ruling for Microsoft is the second time this month that the software giant has wiped out a huge patent infringement jury verdict against it. On Sept. 11, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit erased a $358 million verdict for Alcatel-Lucent, in a ruling that earned Sidley's Constantine Trela Jr. Litigator of the Week honors. (The Federal Circuit ordered a new trial in the case.)
Meanwhile, Microsoft awaits word from the Federal Circuit on its appeal of a $290 million judgment -- and a potentially crippling injunction against some versions of its Word software -- entered by a federal district court judge in Texas in a case brought by a company called i4i. The expedited appeal was argued last week by Matt Powers of Weil, Gotshal & Manges (for Microsoft) and Donald Dunner of Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner (for i4i). Here's Reuters' take and here's an audio recording of the arguments, courtesy of the Federal Circuit's Web site.
Information from The Associated Press contributed to this story.
This article first appeared on The Am Law Litigation Daily blog on AmericanLawyer.com.
