Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Judge Invalidates 13 Motorola Patent Claims Against Microsoft

By - Source: FOSS Patents

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

There are 12 Comments.
Top Comments
  • 16
    Soda-88 , February 11, 2013 11:25 PM
    After reading this, it makes me wonder how on earth was Apple granted the 'slide to unlock' patent...
  • 12
    mariusmotea , February 11, 2013 11:38 PM
    Same judge must see Apple patents.
  • 12
    thecolorblue , February 11, 2013 11:50 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
  • 16
    Soda-88 , February 11, 2013 11:25 PM
    After reading this, it makes me wonder how on earth was Apple granted the 'slide to unlock' patent...
  • 12
    thecolorblue , February 11, 2013 11:50 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.
  • 12
    mariusmotea , February 11, 2013 11:38 PM
    Same judge must see Apple patents.