Government backs Canadian firm in patent lawsuit against Microsoft

The U.S. government has filed an amicus brief supporting Canadian software firm i4i in its ongoing patent infringement lawsuit against Microsoft.

A federal court ordered Microsoft to pay i4i $290 million in August 2009 after finding the software giant infringed on i4i's patent for an XML tool in its popular Word application. Microsoft unsuccessfully appealed that decision late last year and is now taking its case to the Supreme Court.

A number of large firms such as Proctor & Gamble and General Electric are backing i4i; Chairman Loudon Owen announced Monday that 22 amicus briefs have been filed backing the firm's position.

Among them was a brief from acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal representing the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office.

"As you can see from the amicus briefs, and from a letter previously sent to the Attorney General by over 260 signatories, this is an absolutely pivotal case that threatens the ability of inventors and innovative organizations to survive," Owen said.

"Patent protection and the practical ability to enforce a patent are the lifeblood of innovation. Inventions are publicly disclosed in exchange for patent rights and protection. This social contract has enabled development of the most innovative country in history."

Microsoft corporate vice president and deputy general counsel for litigation David Howard argued the current patent system unfairly rewards "dubious patents" in a statement issued in response.

“This case can be summed up in one world — balance. The current approach taken by the Court of Appeals improperly tilts the scales to reward invalid patents," Howard said.

"That approach needs to be corrected in favor of a system that ensures the process for obtaining and defending patents is clear, reasonable and doesn’t unduly burden the system or innovation."

The briefs argue a court ruling for Microsoft could cause wide-ranging harm to the patent system by devaluing all patents, therefore reducing the incentive to innovate. They also suggest that venture capitalists may be more reluctant to invest in start-ups if their patents can be invalidated by a jury.

"The amicus briefs underscore the importance of the case and the extremely damaging consequences if the law is changed and there is a ruling to overturn the lower court's correct decision in favour of new law changes which Microsoft proposes," Owen said.

The Supreme Court is expected to hear oral arguments in the case on April 18, with a decision expected by the end of June.