Two weeks ago tomorrow the jury in the CAC v. Microsoft patent trial pending in Judge Clark's court rendered a verdict for the defendant, finding that Microsoft did not infringe either of the two claims, and that both claims were invalid. Yesterday we got to see, as the lifeboats rowed up to the Carpathia on the morning after the sinking, so to speak, whether the survivors were going to get machine-gunned, or cups of hot cocoa and a warm blanket. (Bet you've never heard a postverdict ruling characterized that way).
In an order reported at 2007 WL 4223218 Judge Clark ruled on three of prevailing defendant Microsoft's claims and issued a final judgment yesterday. Neither is published (at least not yet) but I thought the results might be of interest. They were: (1) Microsoft’s declaratory judgment counterclaim for invalidity based on indefiniteness; (2) Microsoft’s declaratory judgment counterclaim for unenforceability based on inequitable conduct; and (3) Microsoft’s request for attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285. He denied all three.
As to invalidity based on indefiniteness, Judge Clark held that Microsoft had not shown that the claims were not amenable to construction or were insolubly ambiguous. With respect to Microsoft’s inequitable conduct claim, he held that the evidence was insufficient to conclude that a material prior art reference was withheld with an intent to deceive. Finally, he held that the evidence was also insufficient to establish that this was an exceptional case and that Microsoft is entitled to attorneys’ fees. "Computer Acceleration’s infringement claims were not based on allegations which were vexatious and/or made in bad faith" Judge Clark wrote, and "Computer Acceleration did not engage in inequitable conduct before the PTO. The parties were well-prepared for trial, and there has been no showing of vexatious or unjustified conduct before or during trial. Winning a hard fought case in which the jury had to decide between qualified witnesses with opposing viewpoints is not, in itself, exceptional, nor a justification for attorneys’ fees. Accordingly, Microsoft has not established that this is an exceptional case that warrants attorneys’ fees."
A take-nothing judgment was therefore entered, the two claims at issue were declared invalid, and costs were taxed against plaintiffs.
