A Web technology patent held by the University of California and
licensed by Eolas Technologies Inc. will be re-examined by the U.S.
Patent and Trademark office. The university may lose patent rights
to this technology, which plays a role in virtual tours on the
Internet.
Trey Davis, a spokesman for the UC Office of the President, said
the university is confident of the patent’s validity.
“We hope that the re-examination will confirm the previous
assessment of the patent office,” he said.
If the patent is considered invalid, an August court decision
that ruled that Microsoft was in violation of the
university’s patent, may also be nullified. Microsoft’s
Internet Explorer browser system, the court ruling said, was a
copyright infringement.
The UC and Eolas Technologies Inc. could lose the award of
$520.6 million which they were given by the court for the
infringement. The majority of the UC’s portion of this award,
if they retain it, would fund research and education at UC San
Francisco.
Davis said the UC could also lose the licensing fees it receives
for use of the patented technology, if the patent is found
invalid.
Microsoft, who has said that it will appeal the August verdict,
believes the patent is invalid.
“Microsoft is heartened by the fact that the United States
Patent Office will take a close look at the patent. As we have
maintained all along, when scrutinized closely we believe the
patent office will find that this is not a valid patent,”
Microsoft said in a statement.
The browser technology in question allows an Internet user to
fully interact with applications on Web pages. This technology
plays a role both in virtual tours and Internet games.
Michael Doyle, the founder of Eolas Technologies Inc., says he
co-invented the browser technology as a researcher at UCSF. The
technology was originally patented in 1994.
Davis said the reconsideration of the patent could be a legal
strategy for Microsoft to avoid making payments to the university.
Microsoft makes a $19 billion profit by using the Internet Explorer
browser technology, Davis said.
“It is really just an issue of Microsoft paying their fair
share to the people that invented the technology they are profiting
from,” Davis said.
A large segment of the industry affected by the patent have
raised questions about the patent’s validity. Some also say
the university’s patented technology was similar to
pre-existing technology, a claim known as “prior
art.”
These two issues have prompted the patent’s
re-examination, according to the U.S. Patent and Trademark
Office.
The patent’s re-examination was ordered by the Director of
the Patent Office, which rarely happens, said Brigid Quinn,
spokeswoman for the Patent Office. Patent holders or third parties
are more commonly the ones to request re-examinations.
The re-examination, which Quinn said will take at least a year,
could result in the upholding of the patent or cause changes or
eliminations to one or more of the patent’s claims. All of
the patent claims could also be eliminated.