You can read the court's decision in its 50-page entirety here [PDF]. You get to read details like:
- Defendents arguing over what the term "user" means.
- That a serial number isn't a form of password.
- That the protection mechanism in AutoCAD Release 13 didn't predate the Z4 patent, because it did not contact Autodesk automatically.
Exerprts
From page 35: "Defendants move for a new trial on the grounds that z4 improperly commented on the number of exhibits Defendants brought to trial. Defendants included over 3,000 exhibits, totaling 30 linear feet of documents, on their pre-trial exhibit list. As discussed below in more detail, Defendants’ attempt to flood z4 in exhibits constituted litigation misconduct. Any mention by z4 about Defendants’ excessive exhibits does not establish grounds for a new trial."
Page 40: "The Moncau email was an email sent from Moncau to various Microsoft employees including Cole and Pearce and addressed in part whether Microsoft’s BP 98 software [Microsoft's copy protection scheme] worked for its intended purpose of stopping piracy. This was an important piece of evidence for z4 and was unfavorable to Microsoft, yet it had never been produced by Microsoft. ... Defendants admit they were aware of the Moncau email several hours before Moncau’s deposition, but still withheld it from z4 until z4 found out about it during questioning during the deposition. This raises a serious question as to whether the email would have ever seen the light of day, had z4 not uncovered it during Moncau’s deposition the day before trial."
Page 41: "The summary chart was allegedly compiled from data found in a Hughes database that tracked the customer registrations of BP 98. ... z4 had inquired about this database some eight months earlier during Hughes’s deposition in August, 2005. Hughes testified that the alleged database did not exist. However, a week later, Microsoft produced a CD labeled "source code" with 11,274 files on it that belonged to Hughes. At trial Microsoft argued that the database was on the CD in a subfolder and z4 could have found it. Yet Microsoft admits that it knew all along the database was on the CD and never informed z4 or corrected Hughes’s testimony on the topic."
Page 41: "In an attempt to bolster Defendants’ claim that BP 98 worked for its intended purpose, Hughes intended to testify ... that no copy of BP 98 was installed on more than three computers over the internet. After reviewing the database, z4 discovered at least one instance where the same copy of BP 98 appeared to have been installed on 828 different computers over the internet."
Page 46: "Microsoft infringed the ‘471 patent with knowledge of that patent since at least February 2003. This time period is significant considering the amount of infringing products that Microsoft sold in that amount of time. Although there is some evidence that Microsoft could have designed around the patents-in-suit, the Court is not aware of any remedial actions taken by Microsoft in an attempt to design around the patents or to remedy the potential infringement of Colvin’s [z4] patents. While the Court is not aware of any direct motivation on the part of Microsoft to harm Colvin, there is ample circumstantial evidence that to Microsoft Colvin and his patent rights were insignificant because Microsoft never thought Colvin would be able to pursue his rights against it. The evidence presented at trial suggests that Microsoft considered z4 a small and irrelevant company that was not worthy of Microsoft’s time and attention, even if Microsoft was potentially infringing its patents."
Page 44: "z4 provided the Court with an excerpt from the 2005 American Intellectual Property Law Association’s Economic Survey, which indicates that the average cost of litigating a patent case in Texas is $4,993,750."
Comments