Judge Robart in Seattle Grants Microsoft's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment ~pj Updated

Judge James Robart in the Microsoft v. Motorola litigation in Seattle has ruled now on Microsoft's partial summary judgment motion that they held the hearing about last week. He has -- surprise, surprise -- once again ruled for Microsoft. He has not yet ruled on the other issue the hearing was about, the issue of the Google license agreement with MPEG LA.

I agree with him in the abstract, so to speak, that software patents require increased disclosure. He has ruled that the means-plus-function software patents Motorola was using in this litigation are, without specifically disclosed algorithms, invalid in that he decided the algorithms claimed were insufficient as vague:

Accordingly, where the disclosed structure corresponding to a means-plus-function element is a computer-implemented algorithm, the algorithmic structure must be disclosed....

Because neither the examples of a decoder, nor the definition of a decoder, identified in the specification amount to anything more than a programmed general computer or a functional description, the court requires disclosure of an algorithm corresponding to the "means for decoding" and "means for using" limitations....Although the specification describes how one of skill in the art would ascertain what blocks to consider when decoding, the specification provides no guidance as to how one of ordinary skill would actually decode the considered blocks. Thus, the court concludes that the specification contains no disclosure that supports Motorola's proposed algorithm (or any other algorithm) for corresponding structure to the decoding function required by the "means for selectively decoding" limitation of claim 13 of the '375 Patent.

Means plus function claims are exactly what the USPTO is asking the software community to comment on, with the view to improving software patents, and one suggestion we at Groklaw are sending in is the need for increased disclosure, and not just for the type of patent the judge thinks needs more specific disclosure. But if the world decides that any time the patent says something like "on a computer" that you need to provide specific algorithms, so be it. From his mouth to God's ears, as they say.

You doubt that software patents need to go? Look at all the trouble they are causing.