The patent is owned by the University of California and licensed
by tiny tech firm Eolas Technologies, both of which sued Microsoft
for infringement in 1999. In 2003, a jury agreed with the claim and
awarded damages of $520.6 million plus interest.
Microsoft appealed and, in March this year, it won a retrial.
The case has been sent back to the District Court, where Microsoft
effectively has to show that the Eolas patent is invalid because
the technology behind the patent was already in the public
domain.
Its case will be made more difficult by a September ruling from
the US Patent and Trademark Office that found the patent to be
valid.
In the meantime, Microsoft has been seeking to appeal a further
aspect of the original ruling – that the damages awarded to Eolas
and the University of California can cover not only US-distributed
copies of Internet Explorer, but also those distributed throughout
the rest of the world.
Microsoft argued that this is not fair, as the patent is only a
US patent, and therefore not effective beyond the US. It sought a
reduction in the sum of damages awarded to reflect this. If
successful, reports suggest that Microsoft may have reduced the
damages award by around $360 million.
However, the US Supreme Court yesterday refused to consider the
appeal, meaning attention will remain focused on the Chicago
District Court retrial.
