Microsoft Corporation v Motorola Mobility LLC

Microsoft Corporation v Motorola Mobility LLC

Claim 1 of the patent is not limited to push technology and encompasses both push and polling systems for synchronising message status among transceivers. The language 'responsive to receiving the second message' does not exclude polling, and the patent's background, purpose, and common general knowledge at the priority date support this broader interpretation. The subsidiary argument limiting polling to non-manual commands was not raised below and is not permitted on appeal.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: Microsoft Corporation; Defendant/appellant: Motorola Mobility LLC.; Part 20 Claimant/respondent: Motorola Mobility LLC.; Part 20 Claimant/respondent: Motorola Mobility International Limited; Part 20 Defendant/appellant: Microsoft Corporation; Part 20 Defendant/appellant: Microsoft Luxembourg S.A.R.L.; Part 20 Defendant/appellant: Microsoft Ireland Operations Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 December 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (patents) / Appeal From High Court (patents Court)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Patent Interpretation, Obviousness, Novelty, Infringement, Prior Art
Intellectual Property Patents Patent Interpretation Obviousness Novelty Infringement Prior Art

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Microsoft Corporation

Claimant/respondent

Motorola Mobility LLC.

Defendant/appellant

Motorola Mobility LLC.

Part 20 Claimant/respondent

Motorola Mobility International Limited

Part 20 Claimant/respondent

Microsoft Corporation

Part 20 Defendant/appellant

Microsoft Luxembourg S.A.R.L.

Part 20 Defendant/appellant

Microsoft Ireland Operations Limited

Part 20 Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (patents) / Appeal From High Court (patents Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Proper interpretation of Claim 1 of European Patent (UK) No. 0 847 654
  2. 2 Whether Claim 1 is limited to push technology or includes polling systems
  3. 3 Whether the patent is invalid for obviousness over common general knowledge and prior art

Ratio Decidendi

Claim 1 of the patent is not limited to push technology and encompasses both push and polling systems for synchronising message status among transceivers. The language 'responsive to receiving the second message' does not exclude polling, and the patent's background, purpose, and common general knowledge at the priority date support this broader interpretation. The subsidiary argument limiting polling to non-manual commands was not raised below and is not permitted on appeal.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed; High Court order revoking the patent and dismissing the infringement claim upheld.