Iron Oak Techs. v. Microsoft is a nonprecedential case decided on June 8, 2020, on appeal from the Northern District of Texas. In 2016 and 2017, Iron Oak sued various electronics manufacturers. Because those lawsuits implicated Microsoft’s products, Declaratory Plaintiff Microsoft sued Iron Oak “seeking a declaratory judgment action that Microsoft has not infringed, induced others to infringe, or contributed to the infringement of any claim of the patents at issue.” The manufacturer suits and the Microsoft suit were consolidated. The district court granted Microsoft summary judgment that “Iron Oak did not provide notice to any Defendant in the Manufacturer Suits that a Microsoft product was alleged to infringe and that therefore Iron Oak cannot recover damages from the Defendants in the Manufacturer Suits for infringement by the use of Microsoft products.” The district court then dismissed Microsoft’s declaratory judgment claims as moot. The district court entered identical summary judgment orders in the Microsoft Action and each of the manufacturer suits. Iron Oak appealed.
The Federal Circuit affirmed the decision as to notice under § 287 and dismissed as to other defendants (other than Microsoft) for lack of jurisdiction.
“The only underlying case on appeal—the Microsoft Action—includes only Iron Oak and Microsoft. Yet the briefing focuses entirely on whether the notice letters Iron Oak sent to the Manufacturers, not Microsoft, were sufficient under 35 U.S.C. § 287 as to Microsoft products and services installed on the Manufacturers’ laptops and tablets.” “Iron Oak never sent any notice letter to Microsoft before the patents-at-issue expired, Iron Oak does not seek damages from Microsoft, Microsoft is not a defendant in the Manufacturer Suits as defined in the district court’s decision, and the Manufacturers were not parties to the Microsoft Action below and are not here on appeal to defend it.”
The levitra 100mg rest of the year, most biker women keep in touch with the doctor so that if any inconvenience occurs then you could have an instant help from their side. You will find cialis online Order Page many suffering from the same batch of ingredients coming from the same source. These erectile dysfunction pills are made from natural traditional herb extracts and are used by physicians for centuries from many different levitra sale cultures. Reduction of this male sexual greyandgrey.com best price for cialis hormone can also be linked with the male organ.
The Federal Circuit thus could not “entertain any challenge to the summary judgments entered in the Manufacturer Suits because… those cases remain ongoing as to the Manufacturers’ infringement liability and the sufficiency of notice under § 287 for non-Microsoft products and services installed on the manufacturers’ devices.” “The only judgment that would be final for purposes of [Federal Circuit] review is as to Microsoft.” The Federal Circuit thus “affirm[ed] the district court’s decision only insofar as it held that Iron Oak did not provide sufficient notice under 35 U.S.C. § 287 to Microsoft that Microsoft’s products infringe the patents at issue.” “But to the extent the district court’s final judgment purports to extend beyond the only party to this case, Microsoft, and to the sufficiency of notice to defendants outside of this case, the judgment is not final,” and the Federal Circuit does not have jurisdiction.
The Federal Circuit rejected Microsoft’s argument that “because it has indemnity agreements with the manufacturers, it has standing to sue for a declaration of non-infringement by Microsoft customers accused by reason of their use of Microsoft products or services.” “[H]ere, the Manufacturer Suits were ongoing before Microsoft filed its declaratory judgment action.” “Therefore, Microsoft could defend its customers and efficiently and effectively participate in the Manufacturer Suits.”