Corel Software, LLC v. Microsoft Corporation

Case Overview and Background

This long-running litigation involved a dispute between two major software developers, Corel Software, LLC and Microsoft Corporation. Corel is a Canadian software company known for its graphics and productivity software, including CorelDRAW and WordPerfect. Microsoft is a dominant global technology corporation that produces the Windows operating system and the widely used Microsoft Office productivity suite. The case centered on Corel's allegation that Microsoft's "Live Preview" feature, present in Microsoft Office applications like Word, Excel, and PowerPoint, infringed on Corel's patents. This feature allows users to see how a formatting change would look on a document before committing to the change. The dispute was not one-sided, as Microsoft filed its own patent infringement suit against Corel in 2015 regarding graphical user interface elements in Corel's software.

Initially, Corel asserted three patents, including U.S. Patent No. 8,700,996, which generally covers a "real time preview" method for displaying potential formatting changes. The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, a venue Corel chose because the three inventors of the asserted technology resided there, ensuring they were within the court's subpoena power. The case was presided over by several judges during its decade-long span, including Judge Jill N. Parrish, who ultimately granted the summary judgment. The litigation is notable for its duration, the high stakes involved with a damages claim reportedly in the billions, and its significant procedural history, which included multiple stays pending reviews at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).

The case highlights the strategic use of post-grant proceedings at the USPTO to challenge patent validity in parallel with district court litigation. Microsoft successfully petitioned for inter partes review (IPR) of the '996 patent, leading Corel to cancel the initially asserted claims. After Corel added new claims from the '996 patent to the case, Microsoft initiated an ex parte reexamination, prompting a second stay of the litigation. This procedural complexity, involving appeals and multiple stays, extended the litigation for over a decade. The final resolution came in September 2025, when Judge Parrish granted summary judgment in Microsoft's favor, finding the last remaining asserted patent claims invalid as obvious in light of prior art.

Key Legal Developments & Outcome

This litigation spanned over a decade, marked by extensive motion practice, multiple stays pending parallel proceedings at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), and a shifting focus among the asserted patents. The case ultimately concluded with a judgment in favor of Microsoft.

Filing and Initial Pleadings (2015)

• 2015-07-27: Corel Software, LLC filed its complaint in the District of Utah, alleging that Microsoft's "Live Preview" feature infringed three patents related to real-time document preview technology: U.S. Patent Nos. 6,731,309, 7,827,483 (the '483 patent), and 8,700,996 (the '996 patent). The complaint alleged willful infringement, noting that the parties had previously discussed a potential patent sale.
• Answer and Counterclaims: While the specific date and docket entry for Microsoft's answer are not readily available in the search results, subsequent filings confirm that Microsoft denied infringement and counterclaimed for invalidity of the asserted patents. The litigation was also connected to a separate suit Microsoft filed against Corel in December 2015 in the Northern District of California, alleging infringement of nine Microsoft patents related to graphical user interfaces, indicating an aggressive, multi-front legal strategy.

Pre-Trial Motions and Stays (2016–2021)

• Motion to Transfer (2015-2016): Microsoft moved to transfer the case to the Northern District of California or the Western District of Washington, arguing that Utah was an inconvenient forum. On 2016-02-26, Judge Jill N. Parrish denied the motion, crediting Corel's rationale that it filed in Utah because the patent's inventors resided there and were subject to the court's subpoena power.
• First Stay Pending Inter Partes Review (IPR) (2016-2018): Microsoft strategically challenged the asserted patents at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). In 2016-08-23, the court granted Microsoft's motion to stay the litigation pending the outcome of its IPR petitions.
  • '483 Patent IPR: On 2016-12-01, the PTAB denied institution of IPR for the '483 patent.
  • '996 Patent IPR: On the same day, the PTAB instituted IPR for the asserted claims of the '996 patent (IPR2016-01086). Rather than defend the claims, Corel filed a statutory disclaimer on 2017-02-27, canceling the challenged claims and requesting an adverse judgment, which the PTAB granted.
• Lifting of Stay and Amended Contentions (2018): The stay was lifted in June 2018. Corel then successfully moved to amend its infringement contentions on 2018-11-05, substituting two new dependent claims from the '996 patent (claims 5 and 18) to replace the ones it had canceled during the IPR.
• Second Stay Pending Ex Parte Reexamination (2019-2021): In response to Corel's assertion of new claims from the '996 patent, Microsoft filed a request for ex parte reexamination. This prompted the court to grant a second, lengthy stay of the litigation. A 2021-12-21 order from Judge Parrish denied Corel's motion to lift this 31-month stay, reasoning that the potential simplification of issues from the reexamination outweighed any prejudice to Corel.

Discovery and Claim Construction

• Discovery Disputes: The case featured significant discovery battles. In a notable order on 2018-10-05, the magistrate judge largely granted Corel's motion to compel, requiring Microsoft to produce user "telemetry data" related to the accused "Live Preview" feature. The court found the data was relevant to infringement, damages, and validity and that its production was proportional to the needs of the case.
• Claim Construction: While no standalone Markman order was identified in the search results, the final summary judgment opinion confirms that claim construction was a disputed issue. The court's summary judgment analysis implicitly adopted constructions of key terms in the '483 patent as part of its invalidity ruling.

Final Disposition: Summary Judgment (2025)

• Dismissal of '996 Patent: Following the ex parte reexamination where the examiner rejected claims 5 and 18—a decision later affirmed by the PTAB—Corel's assertion of the '996 patent was dismissed with prejudice from the case around March 2023. This left the '483 patent as the primary focus of the litigation.
• Summary Judgment Motion: Microsoft moved for summary judgment of invalidity, arguing that the asserted claims of the remaining '483 patent were obvious in light of prior art, specifically Adobe Photoshop 4, a program first sold in 1996.
• Judgment (2025-09-23): Judge Jill N. Parrish granted Microsoft's motion for summary judgment. In the memorandum decision, the court found that there was no genuine dispute of material fact that the asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,827,483 were invalid as obvious over the prior art. The court entered final judgment in favor of Microsoft, and the case was closed the same day.
• Outcome: The case ended in a final judgment of invalidity against Corel. A review of available docket information does not indicate that a notice of appeal was filed following the judgment, and the case status is listed as "Judgment" and "closed" as of September 23, 2025.

Plaintiff's Counsel of Record

Corel Software, LLC was represented by attorneys from several law firms throughout the duration of this decade-long litigation. The primary representation was handled by McKool Smith, with local counsel from a Utah-based firm.

Name	Role	Firm & Location	Notes
G. Blake Thompson	Lead Counsel	McKool Smith (Austin, TX)	Thompson was a principal at McKool Smith and has experience in complex patent litigation.
David L. Anderson	Of Counsel	McKool Smith (Austin, TX)	Anderson is a principal at McKool Smith with a focus on intellectual property and commercial litigation.
Jonathan Yim	Of Counsel	McKool Smith (Austin, TX)	Yim's practice focuses on patent litigation across various technologies.
C. Ryan Tuley	Of Counsel	McKool Smith (Austin, TX)	Tuley is a principal at the firm specializing in intellectual property litigation.
David R. Wright	Local Counsel	Workman Nydegger (Salt Lake City, UT)	Wright is a shareholder at Workman Nydegger, a prominent Utah IP firm, and has extensive experience as local counsel in federal patent cases.
Brent A. Johnson	Local Counsel	Workman Nydegger (Salt Lake City, UT)	Johnson is a shareholder at Workman Nydegger with a practice centered on patent and trademark litigation.

This list reflects counsel who made appearances in key public filings. It is possible other attorneys and staff at these firms contributed to the case behind the scenes, but their roles are not explicitly detailed in the publicly available docket. Information on Corel's in-house counsel who may have overseen the litigation is not readily available from public court records.

Defendant's Counsel of Record

Microsoft Corporation was represented by a combination of national lead counsel and local counsel in Utah throughout the decade-long litigation. The team that ultimately secured the case-dispositive summary judgment in 2025 was from White & Case LLP, while local counsel from Ray Quinney & Nebeker provided representation in the District of Utah from the case's inception.

Lead Counsel

• Jonathan Lamberson, Partner at White & Case LLP (Silicon Valley)

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: White & Case LLP, Silicon Valley
  • Note: Lamberson led the team that secured the final summary judgment victory for Microsoft in September 2025. He has a long history of representing Microsoft in over 20 patent matters, including as lead trial counsel in a separate case, Microsoft v. Corel, in the Northern District of California. He was previously a partner at Fish & Richardson before moving to White & Case.

• Henry Y. Huang, Partner at White & Case LLP (Silicon Valley)

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: White & Case LLP, Silicon Valley
  • Note: Huang was a key partner on the White & Case team, working alongside Jonathan Lamberson to win summary judgment of invalidity. He previously clerked at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

• Hallie Kiernan, Associate at White & Case LLP (New York)

  • Role: Of Counsel / Associate
  • Firm: White & Case LLP, New York
  • Note: Kiernan was part of the core White & Case team that achieved the 2025 summary judgment win for Microsoft. Her practice focuses on patent litigation across various technology sectors.

Local Counsel

• James S. Jardine, Shareholder at Ray Quinney & Nebeker (Salt Lake City)

  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm: Ray Quinney & Nebeker, P.C., Salt Lake City
  • Note: A highly regarded Utah trial lawyer, Jardine appeared for Microsoft in court proceedings as early as 2016 and provided local representation throughout the case. His practice emphasizes complex commercial and intellectual property litigation.

• Samuel C. Straight, Shareholder at Ray Quinney & Nebeker (Salt Lake City)

  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm: Ray Quinney & Nebeker, P.C., Salt Lake City
  • Note: Straight's firm profile explicitly lists his representation of Microsoft in the Corel v. Microsoft (2:15-cv-00528) matter, among other intellectual property actions for the company in the District of Utah. He is the Chair of his firm's Intellectual Property Section.