Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Judge Invalidates 13 Motorola Patent Claims Against Microsoft

By - Source: FOSS Patents | B 12 comments

Patents related to with encoding and decoding digital video content.

A judge has invalidated 13 patent claims from Google-owned Motorola against software giant Microsoft.

Judge James L. Robart of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington in Seattle issued the decision. The claims referred to three patents (U.S. Patent No. 7,310,374, U.S. Patent No. 7,310,375 and U.S. Patent No. 7,310,376), which all pertain to encoding and decoding digital video content.

Microsoft told the court that the "means for decoding" and the "means for using" elements related to the 13 patents should be ruled as invalid due to a U.S. patent law specification.

"Finally, as stated, decoding and encoding are entirely different functions. Thus, even were a person of ordinary skill in the art able to devise an algorithm for decoding the function from the disclosed encoding description, that alone does not rescue the disputed means limitations from indefiniteness. Were that the case, any means-plus-function limitation could be saved from indefiniteness by an expert's testimony that he or she could have written computer code to perform the recited function based on unrelated disclosures in the specification," said Robart.

"The specification needs to provide a decoding algorithm from which to base the understanding of one skilled in the art, and the court can find no such algorithm within the specification. Instead, the "means for decoding" limitations claim all corresponding structure under the sun by expansively defining the function in the specification as anything that decodes digital data. This definition renders the "means for decoding" limitation invalid for indefiniteness."

Motorola, which has demanded over $100 million from Microsoft over its patent lawsuits, has previously been refused a ban on the Xbox 360 and Windows in the United States and Germany.

 

Contact Us for News Tips, Corrections and Feedback

Display 12 Comments.
This thread is closed for comments
Top Comments
  • 16 Hide
    Soda-88 , February 11, 2013 3:25 PM
    After reading this, it makes me wonder how on earth was Apple granted the 'slide to unlock' patent...
  • 12 Hide
    mariusmotea , February 11, 2013 3:38 PM
    Same judge must see Apple patents.
  • 12 Hide
    thecolorblue , February 11, 2013 3:50 PM
    Now imagine Motorola/Microsoft/Apple ect... were targeting a perceived threat (competitor) that was a small developer of open source software.

    Big corporation sends a letter warning... small developer reads threat letter, looks at $800 bank account balance, calculates the cost to defend against the frivolous (bogus) patent infringement claims... and promptly closes up shop and applies for work at McDonalds.

    great world we're building here... great great world.
Other Comments
  • 7 Hide
    CaedenV , February 11, 2013 3:23 PM
    Is this Google trying to get out of some of their Microsoft pattent leases? I read a long time ago that SM is making some $20 per Android device sold due to patent leases... not sure if it is true, but it would go a long way to explain why it took them so long to get WP7/8 up and going. Why work at making a product when you can get money for free from your competition?
  • 16 Hide
    Soda-88 , February 11, 2013 3:25 PM
    After reading this, it makes me wonder how on earth was Apple granted the 'slide to unlock' patent...
  • 3 Hide
    skyline100 , February 11, 2013 3:34 PM
    caedenvIs this Google trying to get out of some of their Microsoft pattent leases? I read a long time ago that SM is making some $20 per Android device sold due to patent leases... not sure if it is true, but it would go a long way to explain why it took them so long to get WP7/8 up and going. Why work at making a product when you can get money for free from your competition?


    For long term profit.
  • 12 Hide
    mariusmotea , February 11, 2013 3:38 PM
    Same judge must see Apple patents.
  • 4 Hide
    davewolfgang , February 11, 2013 3:46 PM
    Quote:
    After reading this, it makes me wonder how on earth was Apple granted the 'slide to unlock' patent...


    We're ALL hoping this judge (or an actual NON-bribed judge) can hear ALL of the iCrapple suits and invalidate the patent(s).

    And he stated it correctly - you can't "write code" to do something, and then claim the RESULT patentable. Because if someone else can write DIFFERENT code to do the same thing - nobody is allowed to stop them.
  • 12 Hide
    thecolorblue , February 11, 2013 3:50 PM
    Now imagine Motorola/Microsoft/Apple ect... were targeting a perceived threat (competitor) that was a small developer of open source software.

    Big corporation sends a letter warning... small developer reads threat letter, looks at $800 bank account balance, calculates the cost to defend against the frivolous (bogus) patent infringement claims... and promptly closes up shop and applies for work at McDonalds.

    great world we're building here... great great world.
  • 3 Hide
    dgingeri , February 11, 2013 4:13 PM
    I just have to say: these underlined words with mouseover ads are really, really, REALLY annoying. (one 'really' for each one that opened when I moved my mouse across the screen just once.) Whoever had this horrible idea should be shot in the kneecaps with a 12 gauge.
  • 0 Hide
    classzero , February 11, 2013 4:32 PM
    dgingeriI just have to say: these underlined words with mouseover ads are really, really, REALLY annoying. (one 'really' for each one that opened when I moved my mouse across the screen just once.) Whoever had this horrible idea should be shot in the kneecaps with a 12 gauge.


    What ads?
  • 3 Hide
    bourgeoisdude , February 11, 2013 4:48 PM
    dgingeriI just have to say: these underlined words with mouseover ads are really, really, REALLY annoying. (one 'really' for each one that opened when I moved my mouse across the screen just once.) Whoever had this horrible idea should be shot in the kneecaps with a 12 gauge.


    Adblock plus. That is all.
  • 2 Hide
    falchard , February 11, 2013 6:59 PM
    Since when did judges have computer science degrees?

    Anyways like I said, no way Motorola wins this suit.
  • 1 Hide
    sykozis , February 11, 2013 8:00 PM
    caedenvIs this Google trying to get out of some of their Microsoft pattent leases? I read a long time ago that SM is making some $20 per Android device sold due to patent leases... not sure if it is true, but it would go a long way to explain why it took them so long to get WP7/8 up and going. Why work at making a product when you can get money for free from your competition?

    Yes, according to articles, MS collects $20 per Android device sold. They get $2.50 per infringed patent, per phone.....a total of 8 patents. Considering the patents Google has been caught infringing and the source code Google blatantly stole....$20 per device isn't a bad deal....and Google did agree to it.
  • 0 Hide
    The_Trutherizer , February 12, 2013 5:55 AM
    sykozisYes, according to articles, MS collects $20 per Android device sold. They get $2.50 per infringed patent, per phone.....a total of 8 patents. Considering the patents Google has been caught infringing and the source code Google blatantly stole....$20 per device isn't a bad deal....and Google did agree to it.


    I totally feel that many patents blocks a lot of innovation, but then. I'm not getting $20 per android phone. I'm also not saying all patents - Some are just plain stupid.