Contact Information

Your email address:


Powered by FeedBlitz

Wisconsin Advanced Technology Advocates, Inc.

Creative Protection

Disclaimer

  • Our web site contains information only and is not intended to create or solicit an attorney-client relationship. Although we welcome your questions and comments, contacting us from this web site does not create an attorney-client relationship. Information you may choose to disclose is not privileged or confidential. Nothing on our web site constitutes "legal advice." If you think you may need legal advice, we urge you to consult a lawyer to discuss your unique circumstances.

    © 2002-2007 Gehrke & Associates, S.C.

Gehrkelaw Counter

« Jada Toys, Inc. v. Mattel, Inc. | Main | Regents of the Univ. of California v. Dakocytomation California »

Amado v. Microsoft Corp.

Carlos Armando Amado (“Amado”) appeals from the March 13, 2007 final decision of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Amado v. Microsoft Corp., No. 8:03-CV-242 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2007) (“Escrow/Injunction Order”), which dissolved a previously-issued permanent injunction and awarded Amado $0.12 per infringing unit sold by Microsoft Corporation (“Microsoft”) during a period of the stay of the permanent injunction. Amado also appeals from two non-final orders of the district court, which extended the stay of the permanent injunction past the date set forth in the original order. See Amado v. Microsoft Corp., No. 8:03-CV-242 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 1, 2006) (ruling clarified in Amado v. Microsoft Corp., No. 8:03-CV-242 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2006)); Amado v. Microsoft Corp., No. 8:03-CV-242 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 15, 2006).Microsoft cross-appeals from the Escrow/Injunction Order, challenging the district court’s award of $0.12 per infringing unit and the district court’s denial of its motion for relief from judgment.

Because the district court did not abuse its discretion by extending the stay of the permanent injunction, by dissolving the permanent injunction, or by denying Microsoft’s motion for relief from judgment, we affirm in part. Because the district court failed to adequately explain the basis for its award of $0.12 per infringing unit sold during the stay of the permanent injunction, however, and because recent Supreme Court action may affect post-verdict damages, we vacate in part and remand.

Download the decision.