Microsoft Corp. v. International Trade Commission
731 F.3d 1354
Fed. Cir.2013Background
- Microsoft appealed ITC ruling finding no §1337 violation for Motorola on four patents; Commission affirmed no infringement for 054 and no domestic-industry for 762 and 376 but partially reversed on 133 and remanded.
- The 054 patent concerns off-line mode synchronization using resource state information; ALJ construed that term and found no infringement.
- Microsoft relied on ActiveSync sync commands (resource field, ServerID, state tag) to argue state information; ALJ found these commands do not provide resource state information.
- The 376 patent covers a notification broker and client applications; ALJ required a direct data-store driver and found no domestic industry evidence showing actual third-party devices practicing the patent.
- The 762 patent describes a radio interface layer with a hardware-independent proxy and hardware-specific driver; substantial evidence supported no domestic-industry proof and no infringement; the 133 patent’s main-group infringement was reversed on claim construction and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 054 patent infringed under appeal | Microsoft asserts state information in Sync Commands. | Motorola contends no resource state information. | Partially reversed; no infringement under proper construction. |
| Whether the 376 patent supports a domestic industry | Microsoft invested in Windows Mobile; claims cover client apps and broker. | No evidence of actual third-party devices practicing the claims. | Affirmed no domestic-industry; no §1337 violation for 376. |
| Whether the 762 patent supports a domestic industry | Microsoft showed Windows-based devices with driver layer. | No proof driver layer on actual devices. | Affirmed no domestic-industry; no §1337 violation for 762. |
| Whether the main group of 133 patent claims infringe | Context menu is generated proximate to resource; groups include class and container relationships. | Accused products’ menus do not meet claim scope. | Reversed in part; main group infringes; remand on related issues. |
| What is the remedy and whether remand is appropriate for 133 patent | Continued infringement finding and remedies. | Remand to address issues in first instance. | Remanded for further proceedings on infringement and remedies. |
Key Cases Cited
- InterDigital Commc’ns v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 707 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (domestic-industry requirement must relate to actual articles that practice the patent)
- Pass & Seymour, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 617 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (review of claim construction de novo; substantial-evidence standard applied to factual findings)
- InterDigital Commc’ns v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 707 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (reaffirmed need for domestic-industry evidence tied to actual articles)