Intellectual Property Discussion Forum

Forum · Joined: Mar 31, 2005 Messages: 19 Location: IP.com Offline

Appellant TypeRight Keyboard Corporation ("TypeRight") appeals the decision of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California granting Microsoft Corporation ("Microsoft") summary judgment of invalidity of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,372,441 (the "'441 patent") and 5,503,484 (the "'484 patent"). TypeRight Keyboard Corp. v. Microsoft Corp., No. 98-CIV-1358-IEG (S.D. Cal. July 2, 2002). Microsoft cross-appeals from the district court?s dismissal without prejudice of its claims for non-infringement. TypeRight Keyboard Corp. v. Microsoft Corp., No. 98-1358-IEG (S.D. Cal. Nov. 19, 2002). We dismiss the cross-appeal for lack of jurisdiction, reverse the summary judgment of invalidity, and remand for further proceedings...

We lack jurisdiction over Microsoft's cross-appeal. On the merits, we conclude genuine issues of fact remain as to whether the Marquardt document is prior art and that summary judgment of obviousness was improper. Therefore, the decision of the district court granting summary judgment of obviousness is REVERSED AND REMANDED.

pjvande · Joined: Mar 10, 2005 Messages: 7 Offline

In this case Microsoft attempted to invalid a Typeright patent by demonstrating invalidating prior art. The proposed prior art was in the form of a printed version of a power point slide from a professional presentation given at some point in the past. The case seems to revolve around whether a valid and authentic date could be established for the printed version of the presentation (102(b)). In the end, the court ruled that a reliable date could not be established and thus the prior art was ineffective in invalidating the patent, which resulted in a reversal of the prior decision. This case demonstrates the value of being able to establish a valid date for prior art, albeit the prior art in this case is in hard copy form. The challenge becomes all the more acute with the preponderance of electronic prior art.

Does anyone know of a similar case where the prior art was in electronic form (whether it was eventually accepted or rejected as evidence)?