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
4Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Microsoft v. i4i US Supreme Court transcript

Microsoft v. i4i US Supreme Court transcript

Ratings: (0)|Views: 485 |Likes:
Published by JayGreene
.
.

More info:

Categories:Types, Legal forms
Published by: JayGreene on Apr 18, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

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

04/18/2011

 
 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425
Official - Subject to Final Review
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - xMICROSOFT CORPORATION, :Petitioner : No. 10-290v. :i4i LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, ET AL. :- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - xWashington, D.C.Monday, April 18, 2011The above-entitled matter came on for oralargument before the Supreme Court of the United Statesat 11:03 a.m.APPEARANCES:THOMAS G. HUNGAR, ESQ., Washington, D.C.; on behalf ofPetitioner.SETH P. WAXMAN, ESQ., Washington, D.C.; on behalf ofRespondents.MALCOLM L. STEWART, ESQ., Deputy Solicitor General,Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.; onbehalf of the United States, as amicus curiae,supporting Respondents.1
Alderson Reporting Company
 
 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425
Official - Subject to Final Review
C O N T E N T SORAL ARGUMENT OF PAGETHOMAS G. HUNGAR, ESQ.On behalf of the Petitioner 3ORAL ARGUMENT OFSETH P. WAXMAN, ESQ.On behalf of the Respondents 21ORAL ARGUMENT OFMALCOLM L. STEWART, ESQ.On behalf of the United States, asamicus curiae, supporting Respondents 36REBUTTAL ARGUMENT OFTHOMAS G. HUNGAR, ESQ.On behalf of the Petitioner 452
Alderson Reporting Company
 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425
Official - Subject to Final Review
P R O C E E D I N G S(11:03 a.m.)JUSTICE SCALIA: We'll hear argument now inCase No. 10-290, Microsoft Corporation v. i4i LimitedPartnership.Mr. Hungar, you may proceed.ORAL ARGUMENT OF THOMAS G. HUNGARON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERMR. HUNGAR: Thank you, Justice Scalia, andmay it please the Court:The Federal Circuit's clear and convincingevidence standard ensures the enforcement of invalidpatents, even though this Court recognized in KSR thatinvalid patents stifle rather than promote the progressof liberal arts. Under this Court's decisions Groganand Huddleston, the default preponderance standardshould govern in all cases because section 282 does notspecify a heightened standard of proof.And as this Court suggested in KSR, it makesno sense to have a heightened standard of proof when therelevant prior art evidence was never even considered byPTO. Under any view, it was error to require clear andconvincing proof of invalidity in this case.JUSTICE GINSBURG: It would be hard toargue, Mr. Hungar, that it makes no sense, but it made3
Alderson Reporting Company

Activity (4)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 hundred reads
1 thousand reads

You're Reading a Free Preview

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