The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected Microsoft's argument in its long-running patent battle against i4i, upholding a $290 million judgment against the software giant.
In its appeal, Microsoft essentially argued that i4i's patent was invalid, criticizing the process by which patents are issued. The Supreme Court, however, said any changes are up to Congress. "Any recalibration of the standard of proof remains in Congress' hands," the Court said in its decision.
Toronto-based i4i was predictably pleased by the decision.
"Microsoft tried to gut the value of patents by introducing a lower standard for invalidating patents. It is now 100 percent clear that you can only invalidate a patent based on 'clear and convincing' evidence.," Loudon Owen, i4i chairman, said in a statement. "While this ruling maintains the prevailing standard, the innovation community must be ever-vigilant to defend its property rights."
Microsoft, however, said its appeal "raised an important issue of law which the Supreme Court itself had questioned in an earlier decision and which we believed needed resolution."
"While the outcome is not what we had hoped for, we will continue to advocate for changes to the law that will prevent abuse of the patent system and protect inventors who hold patents representing true innovation," a Microsoft spokesperson said.
The case dates back to 2007, when i4i sued Microsoft for infringing on its XML editor patent. In August 2009, a District Court in Texas handed down a $290 million judgment against the software giant and ordered Microsoft to remove Word from the market within 60 days.
Microsoft appealed, but lost in December 2009. At that point, Microsoft said it would remove the infringing XML editor from all copies of Word by January 11, 2010, meaning Word could remain on store shelves. But Micrsoft still filed a second appeal on January 8, and in March 2010, the court issued a preliminary ruling that said the original judgment should stand. By April, it rejected Microsoft's request for an en banc review, but the High Court later agreed to hear the case. The two sides presented oral arguments in April.