X hits on this document

PDF document

Attorneys for Microsoft Corporation - page 51 / 74

210 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

51 / 74

marketing email from i4i containing the patent number, were “familiar” with i4i’s

products, and believed the Word’s custom XML editor would render that product

“obsolete.” Based on this evidence, the jury could have reasonably concluded that

Microsoft knew about the ’449 patent and knew use of its custom XML editor would

infringe.

3. Induced Infringement

Though we need not reach this theory because substantial evidence supports

i4i’s theory of contributory infringement, we do so for the sake of completeness. On

appeal, the sole question is whether there is substantial evidence to support a verdict of

induced

infringement.

To

prove

inducement,

the

patentee

must

show

direct

infringement, and that the alleged infringer “knowingly induced infringement and

possessed specific intent to encourage another’s infringement.” MEMC Elec. Materials,

Inc. v. Mitsubishi Materials Silicon Corp., 420 F.3d 1369, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2005); see 35

U.S.C. § 271(b).

Based on the evidence presented at trial, a reasonable jury could have

concluded that Microsoft had the “affirmative intent to cause direct infringement.” DSU

Med. Corp v. JMS Co., 471 F.3d 1293, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (en banc in relevant part).

The jury saw and heard about Microsoft’s online training and user support resources,

which provided detailed instructions on using Word’s custom XML editor. i4i’s expert

opined that using the editor as directed by these materials would infringe the ’449

patent.

The

instructional

materials

were

thus

substantial

evidence

that

Microsoft

intended the product to be used in an infringing manner. See DSU, 471 F.3d at 1303,

1305. Unlike the instructions in Vita-Mix, 581 F.3d at 1328-29, which taught a use the

2009-1504

26

Document info
Document views210
Page views210
Page last viewedSat Dec 10 17:06:07 UTC 2016
Pages74
Paragraphs2162
Words19614

Comments