Earlier I reported here on Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Limited Partnership, then subsequently on the oral argument before the U.S. Supreme Court. The case arose from a patent infringement dispute relating to the method for editing computer documents, but generated wide-ranging interest in the business community, including developers of nanotechnology-based inventions, because of the broad legal issue addressed. i4i sued Microsoft for patent infringement, and Microsoft defended on the ground that i4i’s patent was invalid. The federal district court gave a jury instruction that the invalidity of a patent had to be proved by “clear and convincing” evidence. Despite Microsoft’s arguments that it should be easier to prove invalidity of a patent (such as by applying a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard) in patent infringement litigation, the federal district court, Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, and the U.S. Supreme Court (in an 8-0 decision) all decided that the clear and convincing standard applied.
Justice Sotomayor, writing for the unanimous Court, 131 S. Ct. 2238 (2011), based the Court’s decision squarely on Section 282 of the Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. § 282, which provides a presumption of validity to patents, and on longstanding common-law doctrines. The Court deferred to the judgment of Congress in the Patent Act, saying that “[w]here Congress has prescribed the governing standard of proof, its choice controls absent ‘countervailing constitutional constraints.” (p. 2244) No such constraints existed here. Addressing Microsoft’s other argument – that a preponderance standard should apply where, as here, not all evidence in the case had been before the PTO during the patent examination process – the Court said that information could be a factor in the jury’s decision, but did not warrant a different standard of proof. (p. 2250-51).
For nanotechnology firms with existing patents on inventions or in the R&D process, the Court’s decision is good news. It provides a strong measure of certainty and economic stability to stakeholders investing in and promoting the patented technologies. It also allows firms to bring patent infringement claims while maintaining some sense of security about their own patent’s validity. Taken together with the 2010 Supreme Court case of Bilski v. Kappos, 129 S. Ct. 2735 (2010), which retained a broad definition for patentable subject matter, Microsoft v. i4i should provide nanotech patent holders with plenty of reason to be pleased.
The decision is available at
