In Microsoft Corp. v. i4i, U.S., No. 10-290, Microsoft is seeking certiorari on the question of whether the "clear and convincing" standard is appropriate in challenging patent validity in civil litigation. For most issues in civil litigation, such as the question of patent infringement, the party asserting the claim only needs to meet the lower “preponderance” standard. The question then, is why should patent validity be treated differently between private litigants, and should this always be the case? For example, if the presumption of administrative correctness and deference to the USPTO are the justifications for the heightened evidentiary standard, why should the heightened standard apply when the prior art used to challenge a patent’s validity was not considered by the examiner during prosecution? These and other questions are being addressed by a powerful collection of amici that have submitted eleven briefs supporting Microsoft’s bid for high court review of this fundamental question of patent law.
As reported by BNA, the list of amici and their counsel include:
• 36 law, business, and economics professors, filed by Mark A. Lemley of the Stanford Law School;
• Acushnet Co., General Motors LLC, Pregis Corp., and SAP America Inc., by James W. Dabney and John F. Duffy of Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson, Washington, D.C.;
• Apple Inc., by Deanne E. Maynard of Morrison & Foerster, Washington, D.C.;
• CTIA—The Wireless Association, by Michael K. Kellogg of Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel, Washington, D.C.;
• Electronic Frontier Foundation, Public Knowledge, the Computer & Communications Industry Association, and the Apache Software Foundation, by Michael Barclay of the EFF, San Francisco;
• Facebook Inc., Intuit Inc., Netflix Inc., Newegg Inc., Toyota Motor Corp., and Trimble Navigation Ltd., by John D. Vandenberg of Klarquist Sparkman, Portland, Ore.;
• Google Inc., Verizon Communications Inc., Dell Computer Corp., Hewlett-Packard Co., HTC Corp., and Wal-Mart Stores Inc., by Paul D. Clement of King & Spaulding, Washington, D.C.;
• Intel Corp., by Dan L. Bagatell of Perkins Coie Brown & Bain, Phoenix;
• The Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association and the Clearing House Association, by John A. Squires of Chadbourne & Parke, New York;
• Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc., the Generic Pharmaceutical Association, and Cisco Systems, by Henry C. Dinger of Goodwin Procter, Boston; and
• Yahoo! Inc., by William C. Rooklidge of the Howrey law firm in Irvine, Calif.
This is clearly an issue that is worthy of attention as the outcome could represent a fundamental change in patent law. i4i’s responsive brief is due on October 29, 2010, and a second wave of amicus briefs in support of the clear and convincing standard will likely follow.
