Kaufman v. Microsoft Corporation
Plaintiff: Michael Philip Kaufman
Defendant: Microsoft Corporation
Case Number: 1:2016cv02880
Filed: April 18, 2016
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of New York
Office: Foley Square Office
County: New York
Presiding Judge: Laura Taylor Swain
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35 U.S.C. ยง 271
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff
RSS Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
July 13, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 228 ORDER CLOSING CASE: On July 1, 2022, the parties submitted a Satisfaction of Judgment (ECF No. 277). Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court shall close the case. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein on 7/13/2022) (ama)
January 25, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 212 ORDER DENYING MOTION TO AMEND JUDGMENT. Plaintiff's motion to amend the judgment, ECF No. 189, is denied. The Clerk is directed to terminate the motion. The judgment, ECF No. 192, will remain as it stands. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein on 1/25/21) (yv)
February 24, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 192 JUDGMENT: It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED: That after a Jury Trial before the Honorable Alvin K. Hellerstein, United States District Judge, the jury having rendered a verdict that Plaintiff Michael Philip Kaufman have judgment in the sum of $7,000,000.00 as against the defendant Microsoft Corp. (Signed by Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein on 2/24/2020) (jwh)
February 5, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 170 ORDER GRANTING REHEARING (MARKING). Plaintiff moved for reconsideration of my ruling, citing additional cases that had not been cited earlier. Plaintiff argued that since the website was not the equivalent of a sale, or offer to sell, his patented process, there is no requirement to mark it as a "patented article." 35 U.S.C. § 287(a). Plaintiff's motion is granted. A key question is whether the Schemalive Website constitutes an "offer[ ] for sale" of a patented article. In the context of a different provision, the on-sale bar imposed by 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), an invention is "on sale" only when there is a commercial offer for sale under contract law principles. Pfaffv. Wells Elecs., Inc., 525 U.S. 55, 67 (1998); Group One, Ltd. v. Hallmark Cards, Inc., 254 F.3d 1041, 1046-48 (Fed. Cir. 2001). The term "on sale," used in 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), is nearly identical to the term "offer[] for sale," used in the provisio n at issue here, 35 U.S.C. § 287(a). In light of the principle of statutory interpretation that "identical words used in different parts of the same act are intended to have the same meaning," Gustafson v. Alloyd Co., Inc., 513 U.S. 561,570 (1995), I find that the marking requirement would only be triggered if the Schemalive Website were a commercial offer for sale under contract law principles. The Schemalive Website lacks necessary elements of a commercial offer for sale, i ncluding pricing information. Accordingly, the jury will be instructed that royalties accrue from February 8, 2011. There will be no need to open the record to allow the parties to present further evidence of royalties within a narrower band of tim e. If the jury returns a verdict of infringement and invalidity, the parties will proceed immediately (or as ordered by the court) to present summations on damages. This order is effective on emailing to the parties which shall take place immediately. The order will be filed tomorrow. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein on 2/4/20) (yv)
January 22, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 166 ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT granting in part and denying in part 111 Motion for Summary Judgment: For the foregoing reasons, Defendant's motion for summary judgment is granted in part and denied in p art. The motion is granted insofar as the claim for willful infringement is dismissed. The motion is denied in all other respects, and trial will proceed as scheduled on the remaining claims. The Clerk is directed to terminate the open motion (ECF No. 111). (Signed by Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein on 1/22/2020) (jwh)
January 14, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 156 ORDER DENYING MOTION TO EXCLUDE EXPERT TESTIMONY denying 118 Motion in Limine. Defendant's motion to exclude expert testimony is denied. The Clerk is directed to terminate the open motion (ECF No. 118). SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein on 1/14/20) (yv)
Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the New York Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Kaufman v. Microsoft Corporation
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Michael Philip Kaufman
Represented By: Ronald Abramson
Represented By: Ari Jason Jaffess
Represented By: David Guerrero Liston
Represented By: Alex Gregg Patchen
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Microsoft Corporation
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?