Litigation

IPA Technologies Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation

partially dismissed; continued/on appeal

1:18-cv-00001-RGA-SRF

Auto-generating section 1 of 5: Case overview & background…

Each section takes ~30-60s with web-search grounding. Keep this tab open — sections will fill in below as they complete.

Court: U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
Filed: 2018-01-01

Patents at issue (6)

6851115 PTAB: final decision

7069560 PTAB: final decision

Plaintiffs (1)

π IPA Technologies Inc.

Defendants (1)

Δ Microsoft Corporation

Summary

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.

Case overview & background

Plain-language overview of the case: parties, accused product, patents at issue, and why the suit matters.

Not yet generated. Click Generate to run the LLM with web-search grounding (~30-60s).

Key legal developments & outcome

Major rulings, motions, claim construction, settlements, and the present posture or final disposition.

Not yet generated. Click Generate to run the LLM with web-search grounding (~30-60s).

In the news

What the press has reported about this case, summarized with links to the source articles.

Not yet generated. Click Generate to run the LLM with web-search grounding (~30-60s).

Plaintiff representatives

Counsel of record for the plaintiff(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

Not yet generated. Click Generate to run the LLM with web-search grounding (~30-60s).

Defendant representatives

Counsel of record for the defendant(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

Not yet generated. Click Generate to run the LLM with web-search grounding (~30-60s).

Record id: 6757718-1-18-cv-00001-rga-srf · edit in Admin

Further reading

eBay Inc. v. MercExchange (2006)
Pre-eBay, an injunction was a kill switch a patent holder could threaten. Post-eBay, the worst is monetary damages — and for an NPE that wants license fees anyway, the four-factor test usually fails on the irreparable-harm prong.
How to respond to a patent troll demand letter
Trolls don't write demand letters expecting a fight. The right response makes you the wrong target.
Patent law glossary
Sixty-plus patent-law terms, defined in one or two sentences each, with a link to the deeper article. The universal landing pad when an article uses a term you don't know.
What it costs to get a patent (AIPLA Economic Survey)
A US utility patent costs a median of $8,000-$12,000 in attorney fees to draft and file, depending on the technology — before USPTO fees, before drawings, and before the first office action. Here's the full bill, and why it's a rounding error next to enforcing the thing.
Finding prior art with free tools: Google Patents, Lens, Espacenet, and more
A serious paid prior-art search costs $5,000 to $20,000. The first 80% of what you'd find is sitting behind free tools — if you know how to drive them.

All resources →