Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
5Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Microsoft i4i Cert Petition (patent, 2010)

Microsoft i4i Cert Petition (patent, 2010)

Ratings: (0)|Views: 604 |Likes:
Published by gesmer

More info:

Published by: gesmer on Sep 05, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

05/25/2012

pdf

text

original

 
 
No.
I
N
T
HE
 
 pìéêÉãÉ=`çìêí=çÑ=íÜÉ=råáíÉÇ=pí~íÉë=
 _______________ 
M
ICROSOFT
C
ORPORATION
,
 Petitioner,
 v.
I
4
I
L
IMITED
P
 ARTNERSHIP AND
 I
NFRASTRUCTURES
F
OR
I
NFORMATION
I
NC
.,
 Respondents
.
 
_______________
On Petition For A Writ Of CertiorariTo The United States Court Of AppealsFor The Federal Circuit
 _______________
 
PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
_______________
 
M
 ATTHEW
D.
 
P
OWERS
 W
EIL
,
 
G
OTSHAL
&
 
M
 ANGES
LLP201 Redwood Shores ParkwayRedwood Shores, CA 94065(650) 802-3000T.
 
 A 
NDREW
C
ULBERT
 I
SABELLA 
F
U
 M
ICROSOFT
C
ORPORATION
 One Microsoft WayRedmond, WA 98052(425) 706-6921T
HEODORE
B.
 
O
LSON
 T
HOMAS
G.
 
H
UNGAR
 
Counsel of Record
 M
 ATTHEW
D.
 
M
C
G
ILL
 S
COTT
P.
 
M
 ARTIN
 G
IBSON
,
 
D
UNN
&
 
C
RUTCHER
LLP1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.Washington, D.C. 20036(202) 955-8500thungar@gibsondunn.com
 
Counsel for Petitioner [Additional Counsel Listed on Inside Cover] 
 
 
EVIN
UDLAC
  A 
MBER
H.
 
R
OVNER
 W
EIL
,
 
G
OTSHAL
&M
 ANGES
LLP700 Louisiana, Suite 1600Houston, TX 77002(713) 546-5000
 
 
QUESTION PRESENTED
The Patent Act provides that “[a] patent shall bepresumed valid” and that “[t]he burden of establish-ing invalidity of a patent or any claim thereof shallrest on the party asserting such invalidity.” 35U.S.C. § 282. The Federal Circuit held below thatMicrosoft was required to prove its defense of inva-lidity under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) by “clear and convinc-ing evidence,” even though the prior art on which theinvalidity defense rests was not considered by thePatent and Trademark Office prior to the issuance of the asserted patent. The question presented is:Whether the court of appeals erred in holding that Microsoft’s invalidity defense must be proved byclear and convincing evidence.

Activity (5)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads
PMaryM liked this
martkuhn liked this
FDA Lawyers Blog liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->