Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-05836/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-05836-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 Patent Infringement

---

1

Case No.: 5:15-cv-05836-EJD

ORDER DENYING COREL’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE 

DEFENSE OF EXPRESS LICENSE 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION 

MICROSOFT CORPORATION,

Plaintiff,

v.

COREL CORPORATION, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 5:15-cv-05836-EJD 

ORDER DENYING COREL’S MOTION 

FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT ON THE DEFENSE OF 

EXPRESS LICENSE 

Re: Dkt. Nos. 49

Plaintiff Microsoft Corp. sued Defendants Corel Corp. and Corel Inc. (together, “Corel”) 

for infringement of multiple software patents. Before the Court is Corel’s partial motion for 

summary judgment on the defense of express license to Microsoft’s claim that Corel infringed 

U.S. Patent No. 5,510,980 (the “’980 patent”) under 35 U.S.C. § 271. Dkt. No. 49. Corel’s motion 

will be DENIED. 

I. BACKGROUND

Case 5:15-cv-05836-EJD Document 153 Filed 01/12/17 Page 1 of 6
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

 

B. The Utah Case

In 2015, Corel Software, LLC sued Microsoft for patent infringement in Utah. Corel 

Software, LLC. v. Microsoft Corp., No. 2:15-cv-00528-JNP-PWM (D. Utah July 27, 2015). Corel 

Software, LLC is a separate legal entity from the two defendants in this case—Corel Corp. and 

Corel Inc.—and . MSJ at 8. However, all three 

entities—Corel Corp., Corel Inc., and Corel Software, LLC—are owned by Vector Capital, a 

private-equity firm. Id. Vector Capital acquired Corel Corp. and Corel Inc. in 2003. Corel’s Reply 

in Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Defense of Express License (“Reply”) at 

2, Dkt. No. 67. 

C. This Case

Microsoft filed this case on December 19, 2015, alleging that Corel infringed nine patents 

relating to graphical user interfaces in software applications. Complaint ¶¶ 1–2, Dkt. No. 1. On 

May 23, 2016, Corel moved to amend its answer to add a defense of express license to Microsoft’s 

claim that Corel infringed the ’980 patent. Dkt. No. 47. On May 23, Corel moved for summary 

judgment on this defense. Dkt. No. 49. 

II. LEGAL STANDARD

“Summary judgment is proper where no genuine issue of material fact exists and the 

moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Samuels v. Holland American Line—

USA Inc., 656 F.3d 948, 952 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a)). The Court “must draw 

all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party.” Id. “The central issue is ‘whether the 

evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require submission to a jury or whether it is so onesided that one party must prevail as a matter of law.’” Id. (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 

Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 251–52 (1986)). 

III. DISCUSSION 

Case 5:15-cv-05836-EJD Document 153 Filed 01/12/17 Page 2 of 6
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Case 5:15-cv-05836-EJD Document 153 Filed 01/12/17 Page 3 of 6
4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Case 5:15-cv-05836-EJD Document 153 Filed 01/12/17 Page 4 of 6
Case 5:15-cv-05836-EJD Document 153 Filed 01/12/17 Page 5 of 6
6

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

C. Microsoft’s Request for Further Discovery

Microsoft requested permission to conduct “more discovery into the details of Vector 

Capital’s acquisition of Corel and Corel’s corporate structure” to gather evidence in support of its 

argument that 

. In light of Microsoft’s recently submitted evidence2

and the discussion 

above, the Court denies Microsoft’s request as moot.

IV. CONCLUSION

The Court finds that 

 Corel’s motion for partial 

summary judgment is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 12, 2017 

__________ __________ __ ________ 

EDWARD J. DAVILA 

United States District Judge 

 

2 On December 30, 2016, Microsoft moved for leave to submit recently acquired evidence 

regarding Corel’s MSJ. Dkt. No. 143. Microsoft’s new evidence consists of deposition testimony 

by Corel’s Rule 30(b)(6) representative and Chief Financial Officer; a managing director of 

Vector Capital who is also a member of Corel’s board; and Vector Capital’s Vice President for 

Tax. The testimony contains information about Corel’s corporate structure and Vector Capital’s 

involvement. On January 9, 2017, Corel moved for leave to submit recently acquired rebuttal 

evidence consisting of Corel Corp.’s SEC Form 10-K statements for fiscal years 2006, 2007, and 

2008. Dkt. No. 149. 

Case 5:15-cv-05836-EJD Document 153 Filed 01/12/17 Page 6 of 6