It's hard to find cases solely based on obviousness because many cases seem to be dealing with several things. Also, they all have definitions mostly relating to obviousness rather than giving you an analysis.
Last week for extra credit, I went onto make posts relating to design cases relating to obviousness.
It's quite interesting and yet subjective. Everything about obviousness seems to be subjective because one cannot judge it crystal clear.
As I was digging up obviousness related cases, I was able to find that Microsoft had a case with Acceleration Software International Corporation. They filed patent against Microsoft saying they infringed on US patent 5933639 issued in 1999. The suit asked for $2.50 per copy of Windows XP sold. This amount would be something lie $600 million to $900 million.
Microsoft, on the other hand, argued that they did not infringe on the patent. They stated that there are several ways to improve boot speed of PCs and that Windows XP was one of the example that was done. They ultimately argued that they did not infringe on the technology in the patent.
The jury ultimately concluded that patent was invalid because it was too obvious and technology already exited. Acceleration Corp was created by Acacia after Acacia bought the patent and filed suit against Microsoft. So in all, they could be considered a patent troll.
Since obviousness is so subjective, it's very difficult to judge. Also seen in this case, Microsoft won the case because many other companies are utilizing ways to speed up the boot speed. It could be seen that this is one of the major problems in the US patent system today. It's also interesting that they tried to add Vista to the suit, but jury denied the request.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/139711/article.html
No comments:
Post a Comment