Substantial Evidence Supports Infringement Finding Despite Narrower Claim Construction
Client Alert | 1 min read | 11.19.07
In z4 Techs., Inc v. Microsoft Corp. (No. 06-1638; November 16, 2007), the Federal Circuit affirms jury verdicts of infringement and lack of proof of invalidity of z4’s patents, and the district court’s denial of Microsoft’s motion for JMOL. z4’s patents are directed to the problem of illicit copying and unauthorized use of computer software. The Federal Circuit modifies the district court’s claim construction of the term “user” from “a person, a person using a computer, a computer, or computers,” because it conflicts with the plain language of the claim and the teachings of the specification, to “a person or a person using a computer.” Even so, the Federal Circuit determines that the modified claim construction still supports the jury’s verdict of infringement, based on substantial evidence of record. In particular, the claims explicitly contemplate tracking authorized users through the identity of computers on which they install the software, and Microsoft admits that its product makes product activation determinations based on registration information related to users’ computers.
With regard to the alleged invalidity of z4’s patents in view of Microsoft’s Brazilian Publisher 98 (“BP 98”) product, the Federal Circuit agrees with Microsoft’s assertion that the district court incorrectly defined the intended purpose of the z4 patents as “to stop piracy.” Instead, says the Federal Circuit, the intended purpose of z4’s patents is to “reduce piracy.” Nevertheless, substantial evidence of record is found to support the conclusion that the anti-piracy feature of BP 98 did not work even to reduce piracy. An internal Microsoft e-mail, for example, confirmed the lack of effectiveness of BP 98 in reducing piracy. Thus, the Federal Circuit affirms the district court’s denial of Microsoft’s motion for JMOL of invalidity by anticipation.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 8 min read | 06.30.25
AI Companies Prevail in Path-Breaking Decisions on Fair Use
Last week, artificial intelligence companies won two significant copyright infringement lawsuits brought by copyright holders, marking an important milestone in the development of the law around AI. These decisions – Bartz v. Anthropic and Kadrey v. Meta (decided on June 23 and 25, 2025, respectively), along with a February 2025 decision in Thomson Reuters v. ROSS Intelligence – suggest that AI companies have plausible defenses to the intellectual property claims that have dogged them since generative AI technologies became widely available several years ago. Whether AI companies can, in all cases, successfully assert that their use of copyrighted content is “fair” will depend on their circumstances and further development of the law by the courts and Congress.
Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.30.25
Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.26.25
FDA Targets Gene Editing Clinical Trials in China and other “Hostile Countries”
Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.26.25