Filed: Jan. 12, 2017
Latest Update: Jan. 12, 2017
Summary: ORDER DENYING COREL'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE DEFENSE OF EXPRESS LICENSE Re: Dkt. Nos. 49 EDWARD J. DAVILA , District Judge . Plaintiff Microsoft Corp. sued Defendants Corel Corp. and Corel Inc. (together, "Corel") for infringement of multiple software patents. Before the Court is Corel's partial motion for summary judgment on the defense of express license to Microsoft's claim that Corel infringed U.S. Patent No. 5,510,980 (the "`980 patent") under 35 U.S.C. 271. Dkt.
Summary: ORDER DENYING COREL'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE DEFENSE OF EXPRESS LICENSE Re: Dkt. Nos. 49 EDWARD J. DAVILA , District Judge . Plaintiff Microsoft Corp. sued Defendants Corel Corp. and Corel Inc. (together, "Corel") for infringement of multiple software patents. Before the Court is Corel's partial motion for summary judgment on the defense of express license to Microsoft's claim that Corel infringed U.S. Patent No. 5,510,980 (the "`980 patent") under 35 U.S.C. 271. Dkt. ..
More
ORDER DENYING COREL'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE DEFENSE OF EXPRESS LICENSE
Re: Dkt. Nos. 49
EDWARD J. DAVILA, District Judge.
Plaintiff Microsoft Corp. sued Defendants Corel Corp. and Corel Inc. (together, "Corel") for infringement of multiple software patents. Before the Court is Corel's partial motion for summary judgment on the defense of express license to Microsoft's claim that Corel infringed U.S. Patent No. 5,510,980 (the "`980 patent") under 35 U.S.C. § 271. Dkt. No. 49. Corel's motion will be DENIED.
I. BACKGROUND
[REDACTED\]
[REDACTED\] [REDACTED\]
B. The Utah Case
In 2015, Corel Software, LLC sued Microsoft for patent infringement in Utah. Corel Software, LLC. v. Microsoft Corp., No. 2:15-cv-00528-JNP-PWM (D. Utah July 27, 2015). Corel Software, LLC is a separate legal entity from the two defendants in this case—Corel Corp. and Corel Inc.—and [REDACTED\]. MSJ AT 8. hOWEVER, ALL THREE entities—Corel Corp., Corel Inc., and Corel Software, LLC—are owned by Vector Capital, a private-equity firm. Id. Vector Capital acquired Corel Corp. and Corel Inc. in 2003. Corel's Reply in Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Defense of Express License ("Reply") at 2, Dkt. No. 67.
C. This Case
Microsoft filed this case on December 19, 2015, alleging that Corel infringed nine patents relating to graphical user interfaces in software applications. Complaint ¶¶ 1-2, Dkt. No. 1. On May 23, 2016, Corel moved to amend its answer to add a defense of express license to Microsoft's claim that Corel infringed the `980 patent. Dkt. No. 47. On May 23, Corel moved for summary judgment on this defense. Dkt. No. 49.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
"Summary judgment is proper where no genuine issue of material fact exists and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Samuels v. Holland American Line— USA Inc., 656 F.3d 948, 952 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a)). The Court "must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party." Id. "The central issue is `whether the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require submission to a jury or whether it is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law.'" Id. (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 251-52 (1986)).
III. DISCUSSION
[REDACTED\]
[REDACTED\] [REDACTED\]
[REDACTED\]
[REDACTED\]
[REDACTED\] [REDACTED\]
[REDACTED\]
[REDACTED\] [REDACTED\]1
[REDACTED\]
[REDACTED\] [REDACTED\]
[REDACTED\]
C. Microsoft's Request for Further Discovery
Microsoft requested permission to conduct "more discovery into the details of Vector Capital's acquisition of Corel and Corel's corporate structure" to gather evidence in support of its argument that [REDACTED\]. In light of Microsoft's recently submitted evidence2 and the discussion above, the Court denies Microsoft's request as moot.
IV. CONCLUSION
The Court finds that [REDACTED\] Corel's motion for partial summary judgment is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
