Skip to main content

Are you a legal professional? Visit our professional site

Search for legal issues
For help near (city, ZIP code or county)
Please enter a legal issue and/or a location

Lucent Tech., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., No. 08-1485

Article Placeholder Image
By FindLaw Staff on September 11, 2009 3:31 PM

In Lucent Technologies (Lucent) patent infringement action against Microsoft, district court's judgment against Microsoft is affirmed in part and vacated and remanded in part where: 1) district court's denial of Microsoft's motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) for non-infringement is affirmed as the evidence reasonably permitted the jury to have decided that Microsoft did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that the claims would have been obvious; 2) district court's denial of Microsoft's motion for JMOL that it did not induce infringement of the patent at issue is affirmed; and 3) district court's denial of Microsoft's JMOL regarding the jury's $358 million damages award is vacated and remanded for a new trial on damages as it was not supported by substantial evidence and was against the clear weight of the evidence. 

Read Lucent Tech., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., No. 08-1485

Appellate Information

Appeal from:  United States District Court for the Southern District of California
Decided September 11, 2009

Judges

Before Michel, Chief Judge, Lourie and  Newman, CIrcuit Judges. 
Opinion by Michel, Chief Judge.   

Counsel

For Appellant:  Constatine L. Trela, Jr., Sidney Austin LLP, Robert N. Hochman and Tracy F. Flint, and Carter G. Phillips, John E. Gartman and John W. Thornburgh, Fish & Richardson, PC, Juanita Rose Brooks and Joseph P. Reid, Thomas Andrew Culbert and Stephen P. McGrath, Microsoft Corporation.   

For Appellee:  John M. Desmarais, Kirkland & Ellis, LLP, Paul A. Bondor and Michael P. Stadnick.   

Find a Lawyer

More Options