Case Summary
**Case Summary: Anascape Ltd. v. Microsoft Corp.**
**Docket Number:** 2:06-CV-2602438
**Court:** United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
**Date:** 2006 - 2008
**Overview:**
Anascape Ltd. filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Microsoft Corporation, claiming that Microsoft had violated several patents related to technology used in gaming controllers. The patents in question involved various features pertaining to the functionality and design of game controllers, specifically those aimed at improving user interaction and comfort.
**Background:**
Anascape, a small company specializing in gaming technology, alleged that Microsoft's Xbox controllers infringed on its patents. The company sought redress for damages and an injunction to prevent Microsoft from continuing to sell the infringing products.
**Key Claims:**
Anascape asserted that Microsoft's Xbox controllers utilized patented technology without permission, including aspects related to the controller's layout, sensitivity, and design specifications. The patents involved claimed innovations designed to enhance the user experience in gaming.
**Court Findings:**
The court concluded that Anascape's patents were valid, and that Microsoft did indeed infringe on those patents through its popular Xbox line of gaming controllers. The court awarded Anascape significant damages, underscoring the importance of intellectual property rights in the competitive gaming industry.
**Outcome:**
The case concluded with a favorable judgment for Anascape, which not only secured monetary damages but also established a precedent for the protection of small companies' innovations against larger corporations. It highlighted the ongoing challenges in patent law, particularly concerning technology and software.
**Significance:**
Anascape v. Microsoft is a notable case in the realm of intellectual property, particularly in the technology sector, emphasizing the critical nature of patent protection for innovators and the potential legal ramifications for large corporations that infringe on smaller entities' intellectual property rights. The case also illustrated the complexities of patent litigation, especially in rapidly evolving fields like gaming technology.