Protecting Creativity, Safeguarding Success

Blog

Resource library

In today's rapidly evolving digital landscape, staying informed and increasing knowledge in specialized legal services is crucial for e-commerce and digital technology businesses. At PAIL® Solicitors, we understand the unique challenges faced by start-ups, medium-sized companies, and creative agencies in protecting their intellectual property and navigating legal complexities. By focusing on continuous learning and expertise in these areas, businesses can safeguard their reputation, make informed financial decisions, and seamlessly expand into new markets with confidence.

Our blog is dedicated to providing valuable insights and updates on legal trends affecting e-commerce, social media channels, and digital design industries. With PAIL® Solicitors, you'll gain access to expert advice on mitigating risks, understanding potential legal barriers, and ensuring compliance when hiring international contractors or employees. By staying engaged with our content, your business will be better equipped to handle legal challenges, save time and money, and thrive in the competitive digital marketplace.

Motorolas’ appeal against validity of patent in favour of Microsoft

 

Before: Lord Justice Jackson and Lord Justice Kitchin

Between:

Claimant/Respondent

Microsoft Corporation

and

Defendant/Appellant

Motorola Mobility LLC

Between:

Part 20 Claimants/Respondents

(1) Motorola Mobility LLC
(2) Motorola Mobility International Limited

and

Part 20 Defendants/Appellants

(1) Microsoft Corporation
(2) Microsoft Luxembourg S.A.R.L
(3) Microsoft Ireland Operations Limited
Citation Number [2013] EWCA Civ 1613
Judgment Date: 11 December 2013

Facts

This case was appealed from the order of ArnoldJ dated 25 January 2013 revoking a European patent relating to the synchronisation of multiple mobile devices, specifically status synchronisation as distinct from, for example, synchronisation of the content of a message, and dismissing the claim of the appellants Motorola for patent infringement. ArnoldJ held that the claims of the patent were invalid for lack of novelty over prior art or for obviousness over the common general knowledge of paging or prior art or, in some cases, for both lack of novelty and obviousness. He further held that, if contrary to his conclusions, the patent was valid, Microsoft had a defence by virtue of a licence agreement with Google Inc. Motorola appealed contending that the Judge was wrong in his interpretation of the patent, prior art and the Google licence. Motorola’s appeal was dismissed.

Contract Breach Lawsuit