直 Japanese PDF Font
  • 我们的专业人员
  • 服务
  • 我们的见解
  • 办公室
  • 事务所
  • 人才招聘
Finnegan
  • Articles & Books
    • Ad Law Buzz Blog
    • At the PTAB Blog
    • European IP Blog
    • 联邦巡回法院知识产权博客
    • INCONTESTABLE® Blog
    • Prosecution First博客
  • Events & Webinars
  • 知识产权讯息
  • 播客
    • AI + Finnegan
    • AI + Copyright
    • AI + Patent
    • AI + Privacy
    • AI + Trade Secrets
    • AI + Trademark
  • Unified Patent Court (UPC) Hub

A Summary of the Supreme Court’s Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Limited Partnership Decision

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

 

Related Practices

上诉、争议和法律策略

联邦巡回法院和最高法院上诉

Related Industries

电子和信息科技

电子与计算机技术

Related Professionals

Don O. Burley
Retired Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4145
Email

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.

Related Insights

Conference

IAM Live: Navigating the UPC 2026

November 3, 2026

Paris

Conference

2026 AIPLA Annual Meeting

October 29-31, 2026

Washington, DC

Conference

ChIPs Global Summit 2026

October 21-23, 2026

Los Angeles

Conference

31st Annual UMass Chan Research Retreat

October 14-15, 2026

Worcester

Conference

2026 IPO Annual Meeting

September 27-29, 2026

Toronto

Conference

IAM Live: SEP Summit Global 2026

September 9-10, 2026

London

Lecture

Resolving Patent Suits Without Settlement Payments

September 3, 2026

Virtual

Conference

Singapore IP Week 2026

August 26-27, 2026

Conference

Georgia Life Sciences Summit 2026

August 25-26, 2026

Sandy Springs

Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.

  • 隐私
  • 免责申明
  • Legal Notices
  • Fraud Alert
  • EEO Statement
  • Cookies
  • Contact Us

© 2026 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP