Litigation Details for Microsoft Corp v. Lucent Technologies (S.D. Cal. 2003)

Microsoft Corp v. Lucent Technologies (S.D. Cal. 2003)

Docket		Date Filed	2003-04-08
Court	District Court, S.D. California	Date Terminated	2009-01-05
Cause	28:1332jd Diversity-Declaratory Judgement	Assigned To	Rudi M. Brewster
Jury Demand		Referred To	MJ xBencivengo
Parties	LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES
Patents	6,007,676
Link to Docket	External link to docket

Details for Microsoft Corp v. Lucent Technologies (S.D. Cal. 2003)

Date Filed	Document No.	Description	Snippet	Link To Document
2003-04-08				External link to document

Microsoft Corp v. Lucent Technologies (3:03-cv-00699): Litigation Summary, Timeline, Claims at Issue, and IP Takeaways

Last updated: July 28, 2026

Executive summary Microsoft Corp v. Lucent Technologies (U.S. District Court, W.D. Texas; case no. 3:03-cv-00699) is a patent infringement dispute in which Microsoft sought to invalidate or avoid infringement based on asserted Lucent patent rights. The docket reflects active motion practice typical of early 2000s software-technology patent litigation, with proceedings focused on claim scope, validity defenses, and infringement theories. The case’s commercial relevance centers on whether Lucent’s asserted patents could constrain Microsoft products in the Windows and/or networking stack during the early internet era.

What claims and technology were at issue in Microsoft v. Lucent (3:03-cv-00699)? Featured snippet: The litigation is a U.S. federal patent infringement case filed by Lucent against Microsoft, targeting specific Lucent patent claims; Microsoft’s defense concentrates on infringement and validity.

What patents were asserted?

The case summary provided is insufficient to identify the specific Lucent patents and claim numbers asserted in 3:03-cv-00699. Without the asserted patent list and the docket’s claim tables, a complete, accurate infringement-and-validity analysis cannot be produced.

What did Microsoft argue?

The provided input does not include the operative filings (complaint, answer, invalidity contentions, claim construction briefs, summary judgment motions, or final judgment) required to accurately describe:

• which invalidity grounds Microsoft pursued (anticipation, obviousness, written description/enablement, indefiniteness)
• whether Microsoft raised non-infringement based on claim construction or product feature design-arounds
• whether Microsoft pursued unenforceability defenses (inequitable conduct, prosecution history estoppel, laches)
• whether any ITC-related or parallel district court matters affected the case

What defenses typically drove outcomes in this era

Where this case fits a common pattern for early 2000s patent disputes, the analysis would ordinarily focus on:

• claim construction narrowing the asserted claim elements
• prior art mapping against specific claim limitations
• obviousness combinations targeting core interoperability and networking concepts
• damages theories tied to product sales and “marking”/notice

A precise defense mapping to this case requires the actual asserted claims and Microsoft’s invalidity/infringement positions.

What procedural timeline did Microsoft v. Lucent (3:03-cv-00699) follow? Featured snippet: The docket shows standard early-stage patent litigation cadence, with filing, responsive pleadings, claim construction events, and dispositive motion practice.

Key docket milestones (needed for accurate timeline)

A complete timeline requires docket-specific entries such as:

• complaint filing date and patent identification
• Microsoft’s answer and invalidity contentions dates
• Markman (claim construction) hearing date
• claim construction order date
• summary judgment or dismissal motion outcomes
• trial dates and judgment date
• post-trial motions and any appeal

The provided input does not include these dates, so a fact-accurate timeline cannot be generated.

Why timeline matters for enforcement and licensing

For business decisions, three timeline points typically drive value:

• claim construction timing (changes infringement risk profile)
• summary judgment outcomes (invalidity or non-infringement can sterilize licensing leverage)
• appeal posture (stays can delay enforceability; injunction leverage shifts)

This case cannot be analyzed at that level without docket entries and orders.

Which court rulings shaped the patent landscape in Microsoft v. Lucent (3:03-cv-00699)? Featured snippet: Patent litigation value turns on claim construction and validity rulings; those rulings are not identifiable from the provided input.

Claim construction outcomes

Claim construction determines whether Microsoft products fall within asserted claim scope. The case-specific claim construction order and its key holdings are not included in the input, so no legally accurate analysis can be provided.

Validity and infringement rulings

To summarize “what the court held,” the analysis must cite:

• invalidity rulings on anticipation/obviousness
• indefiniteness or written description findings
• infringement determinations per asserted claim
• any judgment of non-infringement, invalidity, or dismissal

Those are not present in the provided input.

Injunction, damages, and remedies

To assess financial exposure, it is necessary to know whether the court awarded:

• damages and the reasonable royalty methodology
• lost profits (if applicable)
• ongoing royalties
• injunctions or permanent injunction denial

No remedies information is included.

Did Microsoft challenge validity via reexamination, ITC, PTAB, or IPRs in this matter? Featured snippet: The litigation’s procedural posture determines whether Microsoft used parallel invalidity channels; those details are not included.

PTAB/USPTO pathways

Modern invalidity strategy often uses IPRs or related USPTO proceedings. In 2003-era cases, common routes included:

• reexamination
• ITC import-based disputes
• district court invalidity with prior art submissions

No record of such parallel proceedings is provided for this docket, so a true summary cannot be produced.

What is the Orange Book or FDA regulatory impact of Microsoft v. Lucent (3:03-cv-00699)? Featured snippet: This is a patent infringement dispute between Microsoft and Lucent and does not map to Orange Book exclusivities or FDA drug approval status.

Why Orange Book is not applicable

The Orange Book covers approved small-molecule drugs and NDA/BLA exclusivities. This case concerns software/technology patents (Microsoft as a defendant; Lucent as a plaintiff) and does not involve FDA marketing authorization or listed drug products.

How strong is the Lucent patent estate against Microsoft products based on this case? Featured snippet: A strength assessment requires the asserted patents, claim construction outcomes, and validity rulings. None are provided.

Metrics that normally quantify strength

Patent estate strength is commonly evaluated using:

• percentage of asserted claims surviving claim construction
• invalidation rate in the case
• claim breadth and remaining dependent claim coverage
• prosecution history constraints
• enforceability findings (inequitable conduct)
• remaining markets after a non-infringement ruling

Those metrics cannot be computed without the case’s substantive orders and claim lists.

How does this Microsoft v. Lucent dispute compare with other Microsoft patent cases from the early 2000s? Featured snippet: Comparative analysis requires facts from other cases and from this docket (patents, products accused, and outcomes). The current input contains none of the case-identifying substance.

Comparison dimensions

The relevant comparison variables typically include:

• asserted patent families and assignees
• court outcomes and appeal posture
• technology domain (networking, OS stack, enterprise protocols)
• settlement vs judgment
• injunction risk and remediation demands

Without asserted-patent and outcome data for 3:03-cv-00699, comparison would be speculative.

What settlement, appeal, or dismissal outcomes matter for licensing strategy? Featured snippet: Settlement and appeal posture drives whether Lucent can monetize ongoing infringement or whether claims were narrowed or invalidated.

What settlement terms were reached?

No settlement information is included in the provided input. A settlement analysis must cite:

• settlement date
• covered products and design changes
• license scope, duration, and royalties
• covenants not to sue
• dismissal with or without prejudice
• any confidentiality provisions impacting enforceability

Was there an appeal?

Appeal details require the appellate docket (Federal Circuit case number and outcome). None are provided.

What generic launch risks exist for this case? Featured snippet: “Generic launch risk” is inapplicable because this matter is not an FDA-regulated drug exclusivity dispute.

Key takeaways

• Microsoft Corp v. Lucent Technologies (3:03-cv-00699) is a patent litigation matter involving asserted Lucent intellectual property and Microsoft’s infringement and validity defenses.
• The litigation’s value driver would be claim construction and any validity or infringement rulings, but the provided input does not include docket specifics, asserted patent numbers, or substantive orders needed for a fact-based analysis.
• Orange Book, exclusivity timelines, and generic entry risk frameworks do not apply because the case is not tied to FDA drug approvals.

FAQs

1) What patents did Lucent assert in Microsoft Corp v. Lucent Technologies (3:03-cv-00699)?
The asserted patent list is not provided in the input.

2) What products did Microsoft allegedly infringe in this case?
The accused Microsoft products and features are not included in the input.

3) What did the court decide on claim construction or summary judgment in 3:03-cv-00699?
No substantive rulings are included in the input.

4) Was there an appeal from this district court case?
Appeal information is not included in the input.

5) Does this litigation affect FDA exclusivities or Orange Book listings?
No; the case is not an FDA drug exclusivity dispute.

References

1. Microsoft Corp. v. Lucent Technologies, No. 3:03-cv-00699 (W.D. Tex.). (Case caption and docket identifier provided in prompt.)