Motionless Keyboard Co. v. Microsoft Corp.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
486 F.3d 1376 (2007)
- Written by Samantha Arena, JD
Facts
Thomas Gambaro invented a handheld keyboard requiring only small finger movements to trigger the keys. Gambaro developed various prototype models of the keyboard, including the Cherry Model 5. Gambaro secured a business partner to garner funding to further develop and patent the keyboard technology. In 1987, Gambaro provided visual presentations, but not actual demonstrations, of the Cherry Model 5 to various investors with whom he entered into non-disclosure agreements (NDAs). The NDAs expired in 1989. In June 1990, Gambaro disclosed the Cherry Model 5 to Sheila Lanier for the purpose of conducting a typing test, which ultimately took place on July 25, 1990, and involved the connection of the device to a computer to transmit typed data. Lanier signed a NDA the same day. Gambaro applied for two patents for the mechanisms of the keyboard on June 6, 1991 and January 11, 1993, and assigned the patents to Motionless Keyboard Co. (MKC) (plaintiff). MKC brought suit against Microsoft, Nokia, and Saitek (defendants) claiming infringement of the patents. The defendants moved for summary judgment, contending that the patents were invalid under the 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) “public use” bar. The district court granted the motion. MKC appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Rader, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 816,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.