June 14, 2011
By Don O. Burley
On June 9, 2011, the Supreme Court decided, 8-0 (Justice Roberts recused himself), that the Patent Act requires invalidity to be proven by “clear and convincing” evidence. Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Limited Partnership. In an opinion written by Justice Sotomayor (which was joined in by all of the Justices who participated in the case except Justice Thomas), the Court concluded that when Congress stated in § 282 of the Patent Act of 1952 that a patent is “presumed valid,” the presumption of validity had a “settled meaning,” according to which “a defendant raising an invalidity defense bore ‘a heavy burden of persuasion,’ requiring proof of the defense by clear and convincing evidence.” The Court thus held that in passing the 1952 Act, Congress codified the settled meaning of the presumption, including the heightened standard of proof, irrespective of the fact that § 282 “fails to reiterate it expressly.”
The Court also rejected Microsoft’s alternative argument that the preponderance standard should at least apply in those situations where the evidence relied on to establish invalidity was not before the PTO. The Court held that, where appropriate, “the jury may be instructed to consider that it has heard evidence that the PTO had no opportunity to evaluate,” and that it may “consider that fact” when deciding whether the clear-and-convincing standard has been met.
There were two concurring opinions supporting the same outcome. Justice Breyer wrote a concurring opinion (joined in by Justices Scalia and Alito) in which he joined the Court’s opinion “in full” but wrote separately to emphasize that the clear-and-convincing standard applies only to questions of fact and not to legal questions. And Justice Thomas wrote a concurring opinion in which he reached the same result as the Court, but based on the Court’s prior cases rather than on the idea that Congress codified a standard of proof when it stated in the 1952 Act that a patent is “presumed valid.”
Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Limited Partnership Supreme Court Decision, 6.9.2011
Copyright © Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP. This article is for informational purposes, is not intended to constitute legal advice, and may be considered advertising under applicable state laws. This article is only the opinion of the authors and is not attributable to Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, or the firm's clients.
Lecture
Patent Protection for Software-Related Inventions in Europe and the USA Training Course
June 5, 2024
Hybrid
10th Annual Georgia Asian Pacific American Bar Association Gala
May 29, 2024
Atlanta
Workshop
Life Sciences Workshop: Updates and Key Trends in Pharmaceutical and Biotechnology IP Law
May 2, 2024
Cambridge
Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.
We use cookies on this website to provide you with the best user experience. By accepting cookies, you agree to our use of cookies. Please note that if you opt not to accept or if you disable cookies, the “Your Finnegan” feature on this website will be disabled as well. For more information on how we use cookies, please see our Privacy Policy.
Finnegan is thrilled to announce the launch of our new blog, Ad Law Buzz, devoted solely to breaking news, developments, trends, and analysis in advertising law.