For 90 years, Senniger Powers LLP has taken your genius seriously. We know that your ideas deserve protection from the first spark of inspiration to enforcement in federal court. From managing patent, trademark and copyright applications to expert litigation, our attorneys are specialists in all major areas of intellectual property law.
As the largest intellectual property firm in Missouri and one of the largest in the Midwest, we help clients across the country achieve a competitive advantage through strategic management of their IP portfolios.
|
|
|
|
In the News
i4i v. Microsoft - Largest Jury Verdict Ever Affirmed by Federal Circuit Senniger Powers attorney Sara Weilert Gillette discusses i4i v. Microsoft in the following article. Ms. Gillette's practice is concentrated in intellectual property litigation. On January 9, 2009, Microsoft filed its request for rehearing of the decision that affirmed a $290 million award for willful patent infringement and imposed a permanent injunction. On December 22, 2009, in a 49 page opinion, the Federal Circuit affirmed the decision of the District Court. In its appeal, Microsoft argued that the damage award was excessive and should be reduced as was the excessive award in Lucent Technologies, Inc. v. Gateway, Inc. However, the Federal Circuit found it could not treat this case as it had Lucent, because Microsoft failed to file a pre-verdict judgment as a matter of law on damages. Therefore, the panel was forced to evaluate the case under the heightened standard for awarding a new trial. The Federal Circuit found the large verdict was supported by evidence presented by i4i. i4i’s damage expert testified that the royalty rate should be based on the cheapest XML editor available when Microsoft began developing its XML editor. This product or “benchmark” retailed for $499. The i4i’s expert multiplied this price by Microsoft’s profit margin (76.6%) and then applied the 25% rule to arrive at a baseline royalty rate of $96. The panel held i4i’s expert’s analysis was based on sufficient facts or data to meet a Daubert challenge. Microsoft argued that the $499 XML editor had numerous additional features and the price overestimated the portion attributable to the XML editor alone. Microsoft contended that a better estimate was the $50 price difference between Word with XML editor and Word without the XML editor. However, the panel held Microsoft’s objections were merely disagreements with his conclusions, not his methodology. Microsoft was also found to willfully infringe the patent because its engineers had met with i4i, were “familiar” with its products, and believed Word’s custom XML editor would render i4i’s product “obsolete.” Therefore, it was reasonable for the jury to conclude that Microsoft knew about the patent and knew its custom XML editor would infringe. Also of interest is the Federal Circuit’s holding that testimony to defend against anticipation does not need to be corroborated. Microsoft argued that an earlier product by i4i anticipated its XML editor. However, the original source code was destroyed years earlier, so no copy was available for analysis. The inventors of the asserted patent were also the developers of the earlier product. Their testimony that the earlier product did not have XML editing functionality was admitted into evidence without any corroborating evidence. The Federal Circuit held that corroborating evidence is not necessary to support testimony, when that testimony is used to rebut an invalidity attack by pointing to deficiencies in the allegedly invalidating prior art. |
||
Platinum participant in
|
Recent Intellectual Property Headlines
February 5, 2010
Obama Proposes Increased USPTO Budget
February 2, 2010
Michael Godar and John Roedel Named Among "Best Lawyers"
January 28, 2010
Judge Reduces Penalty In File-Sharing Case
January 26, 2010
Federal Circuit Rules Against USPTO in Wyeth v. Kappos
January 20, 2010
Haitian Relief Effort Supported
January 15, 2010
Fleischut Addresses Imputed Disqualification Rules in "Eye on Ethics"
January 13, 2010
Andrew Wegman Promoted to Partner
January 12, 2010
Columbia Tribune Interviews Fleischut on North Face Row
December 28, 2009
Fleischut Comments on North Face v. South Butt
December 23, 2009
Crawford to Serve on Chase Advisory Board
December 11, 2009
Federal Circuit Transfers In re Hoffmann-La Roche, Inc.
December 9, 2009
Patent Office Implements Pilot Program for Green Technologies
December 9, 2009
New IDNs Affect Trademark Protection
November 30, 2009
Jennifer Hoekel Comments on Pet Patent
November 20, 2009
Paul Fleischut Speaks at BAMSL Trademark Seminar
November 17, 2009
Federal Circuit Dismisses Tafas Appeal
November 13, 2009
Jan Hendrickson to Moderate "Outlook for Capital"
November 12, 2009
William O'Neill Discusses Social Media
November 11, 2009
Supreme Court Hears Bilski Arguments
November 3, 2009
Paul Fleischut to Speak at BAMSL Seminar
October 22, 2009
Senniger Powers Attorneys Recognized by Super Lawyers
October 19, 2009
