Defendant
33 cases as defendant.
Microsoft Corporation is a publicly traded technology company founded by Bill Gates and Paul Allen in 1975. Headquartered in Redmond, Washington, the company is a major force in the technology industry, with a market capitalization of approximately $3.13 trillion as of May 2026. Microsoft employs over 220,000 people globally and reported revenue of $318.27 billion for the twelve months ending March 31, 2026. The company trades on the Nasdaq stock exchange under the ticker symbol MSFT.
Microsoft develops, manufactures, licenses, and supports a wide range of software products, services, and hardware devices. Its most well-known software products include the Microsoft Windows line of operating systems, the Microsoft 365 (formerly Office) suite of productivity applications (including Word, Excel, and PowerPoint), and the Edge web browser. In the enterprise and cloud computing space, Microsoft's Azure is a major cloud platform. The company's hardware offerings include the Xbox video game consoles and the Microsoft Surface line of personal computers. Microsoft also operates in social networking with its subsidiary LinkedIn and in search with its Bing search engine.
As a major technology firm, Microsoft is frequently involved in patent litigation. The provided data shows Microsoft is predominantly a defendant, a common posture for large operating companies. In the tracked cases, Microsoft has been a defendant six times and a plaintiff once. This pattern indicates that Microsoft is primarily defending its own products and technologies against infringement claims, often from non-practicing entities (NPEs) or competing companies. The lawsuits are filed in various jurisdictions, including the Western District of Texas and the District of Delaware, which are common venues for patent disputes.
The case list highlights several recent suits where Microsoft is the defendant, brought by entities such as Qomplx LLC and Monticello Enterprises LLC. The single instance of Microsoft as a plaintiff is an action before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), a common strategy for defendants in district court litigation to challenge the validity of the patents being asserted against them. The case involving Corel Software, LLC shows litigation can be two-way, with Microsoft defending in district court while simultaneously challenging the patent's validity at the PTAB.
Appeal arising from IPR2024-01398 and IPR2024-00573. The narrative does not list asserted patents for this appeal and states US 6973576 is not asserted.
The complaint alleges that a range of Microsoft's cloud data analytics and cybersecurity products infringe upon six patents, including the '628 patent. The case is in its early stages, with preliminary infringement contentions and a scheduling order filed.
The complaint alleges that Microsoft's cloud data analytics and cybersecurity products infringe on six patents, including the '627 patent. Microsoft has filed petitions for inter partes review (IPR) to challenge the validity of some of the asserted patents. The district court case is proceeding, with a trial scheduled.
Patent infringement action brought by Sterling Computers Corporation against Microsoft Corporation in the Western District of Texas. On February 12, 2025, the court denied Microsoft's motion to dismiss on patent-ineligible subject matter, deferring the eligibility question until after claim construction and fact discovery. One aggregator lists the case as closed, but the docket reflects an active dispute as of that order.
Pointwise Ventures LLC sued Microsoft Corporation for patent infringement in the Texas Western District Court, filed on March 15, 2024.
This is an active appeal case at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, with MemoryWeb LLC as the Appellant and Microsoft Corporation as the Appellee.
X1 Discovery, Inc. sued Microsoft Corporation for patent infringement of US patent 10552490 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The case is active and has seen several judge reassignments.
This case was consolidated into the lead case 6:23-cv-753-XR and was dismissed on March 18, 2026.
Proxense sued Microsoft in W.D. Tex. asserting US 9,679,289 among six patents-in-suit. The case remained pending with narrowed/summary-judgment activity through 2025, and a parallel Microsoft IPR (IPR2024-00407) ended in a final written decision against Proxense.
AlmondNet II. Defendants' Answer expressly admits Plaintiffs allege infringement of, among others, U.S. Patent 8,775,249; asserted patents also included '260, '307, '146, and '878. The case was consolidated into the 6:21-cv-00897 action and resolved by the same June 2024 dismissal with prejudice.
Filed same day and in the same venue as the Amazon and Meta complaints, this Microsoft suit is cited in related PTAB petitions that submit the prosecution history of US 7,747,745. The narrative could not positively confirm that US 7,747,745 was named as an asserted patent in the Microsoft complaint; treat as unverified.
Route Guidance Systems LLC filed a patent-infringement suit against Microsoft Corporation in the Northern District of Illinois. The narrative identifies this as an unverified lead because it could not confirm that US10145697 was among the asserted patents; the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the case in August 2022.
Lemko sued Microsoft and Affirmed Networks in the Northern District of Texas alleging infringement of the '988 patent along with seven other patents. The case was in the pleading stage, with the court granting motions to dismiss in part and later without prejudice with leave to amend. A Lemko press release stated the court denied Microsoft's motion to dismiss Lemko's direct and indirect infringement claims, though Unified Patents lists the case as closed.
Infringement action listed as Pedersen v. Microsoft Corp. concerning US Patent 6,965,920; current status was not confirmed in the narrative.
The USPTO AO 120 report lists US 8,775,249 as included by pleading. A Markman hearing was held Nov. 30, 2022. The case was dismissed with prejudice by joint stipulation under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) on/around June 5, 2024, each party bearing its own fees and costs.
Parus sued Microsoft in W.D. Tex. asserting the '705 patent, seeking willfulness and treble damages. The case was transferred, with the transferee case apparently docketed as No. 2:22-cv-01700 in the Western District of Washington.
Infringement suit filed by Datacloud Technologies LLC against Microsoft Corporation. The case was dismissed pursuant to a settlement agreement.
Microsoft suit indexed under US 7,791,761 by Docket Alarm; the complaint excerpt emphasized the '870, '008 and '802 patents. The '761 association is based on aggregator indexing rather than claim-by-claim confirmation. Voluntarily dismissed March 11, 2020.
RAH Color Technologies LLC sued Microsoft Corporation in E.D. Tex. Sherman Division. The case is listed in Google Patents' litigation record for the '288 patent, and docket snippets expressly show the '008 patent. RAH filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal on March 11, 2020, and the docket reflects the case as disposed.
Express Mobile, Inc. filed a patent infringement suit against Microsoft Corporation in the Delaware District Court. The case was ultimately dismissed.
IPA sued Microsoft in D. Del., originally asserting the Halverson patents including 6757718; a Second Amended Complaint added the Cheyer patents '115, '560, and '128, accusing Microsoft's Cortana. On January 18, 2019, the '718, '021, and '061 claims were dismissed under §101/Alice. The case continued on the surviving Cheyer patents and later involved summary-judgment/Daubert and Federal Circuit activity.
An older case demonstrating a longer history of litigation for the patent's owner; its current status is not definitively clear from available public dockets.
This case involved allegations that Microsoft's 'Live Preview' feature infringed on several Corel patents, including the '996 patent. The case was stayed multiple times pending the outcome of PTAB proceedings and was ultimately resolved by a summary judgment in favor of Microsoft in September 2025.
Severed from the earlier Mirror Worlds action, this case asserted the '227 patent against Dell, HP, Lenovo, Samsung, Microsoft, and Best Buy. It was dismissed on November 9, 2015, with Microsoft reportedly settling for $4.65 million.
Innovative Display Technologies LLC brought this patent infringement case against Microsoft Corporation, related to LCD and backlight technologies. A memorandum opinion and order was signed in June 2014.
Mirror Worlds Technologies sued Apple and other defendants; after severance, Apple settled by paying $25 million for a fully paid-up, non-exclusive license to the '227 patent, announced July 8, 2016.
After a lengthy legal battle including a $388M jury verdict for Uniloc, the infringement judgment was ultimately vacated by the Federal Circuit in 2012.
A jury found Microsoft infringed and awarded Uniloc $388 million, but the case went through appeals where the CAFC ordered a new trial on damages. The parties reached a confidential settlement in March 2012 before the new trial could occur.
In a lawsuit filed in 2007, a jury found Microsoft's infringement of two VirnetX patents was willful and awarded $105.75 million in damages in March 2010. Following the verdict, VirnetX filed a new motion alleging infringement by newer Microsoft products.
One of several patent infringement lawsuits filed by VirtaMove in Texas in 2024 against major technology companies. This suit asserts both U.S. Patent Nos. 7,784,058 and 7,519,814.
Sandpiper CDN sued Microsoft in the Eastern District of Texas in 2026. The complaint exhibits list multiple patents from the same family, but not U.S. Patent No. 11,218,566. The case is at its initial AO 120 filing stage.
Confirmed case in Stanford NPE Litigation Database for US 7840619; eHierarchy, LLC sued Microsoft Corporation. Filing date and outcome not shown in the source retrieved.
VirnetX and SAIC sued Microsoft for infringement; jury found willful infringement and awarded $105.75 million in March 2010; case resolved by stipulated order of dismissal with prejudice on June 1, 2010 (settlement).