Jury finds Corel willfully infringed Microsoft Office patents

Jury finds Corel willfully infringed Microsoft Office patentsEarlier today, a jury from the Northern District of California (San Jose Division) awarded Microsoft Corporation (NASDAQ:MSFT) a total of $278,000 in a patent infringement action against Corel Corporation and Corel, Inc. (collectively Corel). See Microsoft Corporation v. Corel Corporation et al (Case: 5:15-cv-05836-EJD). Microsoft had requested more than $1 million in damages for the infringement of patents related to Microsoft Office (i.e., the Microsoft Office patents).

Microsoft sued Corel in December 2015, asserting infringement of nine patents — 5 utility patents and four design patents. By the time the case was submitted to the jury on Friday, February 9, 2018, only six patents remained in the case: U.S. Patent Nos. 8,255,828 (“the ’828 patent”), 7,703,036 (“the ’036 patent”) and design U.S. Patent Nos. D550,237 (“the D’237 patent”), D554,140 (“the D’140 patent”), D564,532 (“the D’532 patent”), and D570,865 (“the D’865 patent,”).

Microsoft argued that Corel willfully infringed the ’828, ’036, ’237, ’140, ’532, and ’865 patents. The asserted Microsoft patents are directed to graphic user interfaces used in Microsoft products, such as Microsoft Office. Microsoft asserted that it has given its interfaces, including menus and toolbars, a distinctive look and feel, which Corel copied into the accused products, including WordPerfect X7. WordPerfect X7 even includes an option to use the product in the “Microsoft Word mode.” See Complaint para 3-5. Similarly, Quatro Pro X7 offers the option to use the product in the “Microsoft Excel mode.” See Complaint para. 6-8.

In the jury verdict form returned, the jury unanimously agreed that Corel had willfully infringed the ’828, ’036, ’237, ’140, ’532, and ’865 patents.

At trial Microsoft also claimed to have provided actual notice prior to filing of the complaint, in November of 2009, during a call with Corel. Microsoft had the burden of establishing that it is more probable than not Corel received actual notice of infringement of the ’237, ’532, or ’865 design patents on that date. The jury found that relative to each patent Microsoft had not proved that Corel received notice prior to the filing of the patent infringement lawsuit.

Judge Edward Davilla entered the Minute Order and Trial Log, which concludes the trial. Judge Davilla ordered the parts to meet to confer regarding issues remaining post-verdict. He set a deadline of March 2, 2018, by which the parties will submit a status report and/or stipulation regarding the need for any briefing as relating to JMOL (Judgment as a Matter of Law) and damages. Upon review a determination will be made with respect to the need for a further hearing.


Warning & Disclaimer: The pages, articles and comments on IPWatchdog.com do not constitute legal advice, nor do they create any attorney-client relationship. The articles published express the personal opinion and views of the author as of the time of publication and should not be attributed to the author’s employer, clients or the sponsors of IPWatchdog.com.

Join the Discussion

3 comments so far.

  • [Avatar for Roger Heath]
    Roger Heath
    February 14, 2018 10:26 am

    (Obscure reference)

    P. Potamus for Microsoft, “Did you get that thing I sent you?”.

  • [Avatar for Pro Se]
    Pro Se
    February 13, 2018 07:06 pm

    I’ve done settlements bigger than that in this AIA culture.. wow, did legal recoup?

  • [Avatar for Night Writer]
    Night Writer
    February 13, 2018 06:26 pm

    Wow. Willful infringement of flagship products and a peppercorn in damages.

Varsity Sponsors

IPWatchdog Events

Patent Portfolio Management Masters™ 2024
June 24 @ 1:00 pm - June 26 @ 2:00 pm EDT
Webinar – Sponsored by LexisNexis
August 22 @ 12:00 pm - 1:00 pm EDT
Women’s IP Forum
August 26 @ 11:00 am - August 27 @ 5:00 pm EDT
IP Solutions, Services & Platforms Expo
September 9 @ 1:00 pm - September 10 @ 2:00 pm EDT

From IPWatchdog