Microsoft Corp v Motorola Mobility LLC

Microsoft Corp v Motorola Mobility LLC

Claims 3, 5, and 7 lack novelty over Gutman; claim 7 lacks novelty over PCMAIL and IMAP4; claims 1, 3-5, and 7 are obvious over common general knowledge of paging; claims 1, 2, and 6 are obvious over Gutman; claims 1-6 are obvious over PCMAIL and IMAP4. If valid, Microsoft infringed by supply of EAS and Live Messenger, but EAS is covered by the Google Licence.

Parties
Claimant: Microsoft Corporation; Defendant: Motorola Mobility LLC; Part 20 Claimant: Motorola Mobility LLC; Part 20 Claimant: Motorola Mobility International Limited; Part 20 Defendant: Microsoft Corporation; Part 20 Defendant: Microsoft Luxembourg SARL; Part 20 Defendant: Microsoft Ireland Operations Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 December 2012
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement and Revocation / Final Judgment
Outcome
Patent claims held invalid for lack of novelty and/or obviousness; infringement established if patent valid, but EAS covered by Google Licence.
Legal Topics
Patent Infringement, Patent Validity, Obviousness, Novelty, Licensing
Intellectual Property Patent Law Patent Infringement Patent Validity Obviousness Novelty Licensing

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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Microsoft Corporation

Claimant

Motorola Mobility LLC

Defendant

Motorola Mobility LLC

Part 20 Claimant

Motorola Mobility International Limited

Part 20 Claimant

Microsoft Corporation

Part 20 Defendant

Microsoft Luxembourg SARL

Part 20 Defendant

Microsoft Ireland Operations Limited

Part 20 Defendant

Procedural Posture

Patent Infringement and Revocation / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Microsoft infringed European Patent (UK) No. 0 847 654
  2. 2 Whether the patent is invalid for lack of novelty or obviousness
  3. 3 Interpretation of 'transceiver' and 'responsive to' in patent claims

Ratio Decidendi

Claims 3, 5, and 7 lack novelty over Gutman; claim 7 lacks novelty over PCMAIL and IMAP4; claims 1, 3-5, and 7 are obvious over common general knowledge of paging; claims 1, 2, and 6 are obvious over Gutman; claims 1-6 are obvious over PCMAIL and IMAP4. If valid, Microsoft infringed by supply of EAS and Live Messenger, but EAS is covered by the Google Licence.

Court Disposition

Patent claims held invalid for lack of novelty and/or obviousness; infringement established if patent valid, but EAS covered by Google Licence.

Orders

  • Patent claims 1-7 declared invalid for lack of novelty and/or obviousness.
  • If valid, Microsoft would have infringed by supply of EAS and Live Messenger.