Motionless Keyboard Company v. Microsoft Corporation

486 F.3d 1376 (2007)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P owns the '477 and '322 patents. Gambaro is the sole inventor of both. The invention involved a novel ergonomic keyboard. Eventually, on February 22, 1987, Gambaro developed the Cherry Model 5. Shortly thereafter Gambaro entered into a business partnership with Coulter. Gambaro and Coulter set out to gain financial support to further develop and patent the keyboard technology. Gambaro began to demonstrate the Cherry Model 5 to potential investors. Gambaro began to demonstrate the Cherry Model 5 to potential investors. He also demonstrated the device to a friend, Ms. Roberts. Potential investors signed two-year non-disclosure agreements (NDAs), Ms. Roberts did not. Gambaro entered into some of the NDAs with potential investors in 1987. Those agreements expired in 1989. Gambaro disclosed the Cherry Model 5 to Ms. Lanier on June 25, 1990, to conduct typing tests. Ms. Lanier signed an NDA Only Ms. Lanier used the device to transmit data to a computer. P applied for the patents on June 6, 1991, and January 11, 1993, and assigned the patents to P. P sued Microsoft, Nokia, and Saitek (Ds) for infringement. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. P moved for summary judgment of infringement against all three defendants. The court determined that Ds did not infringe, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. The court determined that the '477 and '322 patents were invalid based on public use under §102(b). The district court also found the '322 patent invalid based on obviousness due to the patentee's terminal disclaimer in light of the '477 patent. P appealed, in part, the district court grant of summary judgment that the '477 and '322 patents are invalid for public use under §102(b).