Editing Eolas (section)

==Litigation==
[[Microsoft]] declined to license the technology when it was offered to them (and others) in 1994.<ref name="ucfaq">{{cite web
| title = Questions and Answers about UC/Eolas patent infringement suit against Microsoft
| url = http://www.ucop.edu/news/archives/2003/aug11art1qanda.htm
| publisher = University of California
| access-date = 2009-10-08
| archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20091012111542/http://www.ucop.edu/news/archives/2003/aug11art1qanda.htm
| archive-date = 2009-10-12
| url-status = dead
}}</ref>

In 1999, Eolas filed suit in the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against Microsoft over validity and use of the patent. Eolas won the initial case in August 2003 and was awarded damages of ${{Formatprice|521000000|3}} from Microsoft for infringement. The District Court reaffirmed the jury's decision in January 2004.

In June 2004, Microsoft appealed the case to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In March 2005, the District Court judgment was [[Remand (court procedure)|remand]]ed, but the infringement and damages parts of the case were upheld. The appeals court ruled that the two Viola-related exhibits that had been thrown out of the original trial needed to be shown to a jury in a retrial. Microsoft quickly filed for a rehearing.

In October 2005, the Supreme Court of the United States refused to hear Microsoft's appeal, leaving intact the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in favor of Eolas with respect to foreign sales of Microsoft Windows. However, the remand to District Court had not been heard yet.

In May 2007, the USPTO agreed to allow Microsoft to argue ownership of the patent after they reissued a Microsoft patent that covers the same concepts as outlined in the Eolas patent, and contains wording that mirrors the Eolas patent.<ref name="ars">{{cite news
 | title = USPTO gives Microsoft chance to overturn Eolas browser plug-in patent
 | first = Eric
 | last = Bangeman
 | url = https://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070531-uspto-gives-microsoft-chance-to-overturn-eolas-browser-plug-in-patent.html
 | publisher = Condé Nast Digital
 | date = 2007-05-31
 | access-date = 2009-10-08
}}</ref><ref name="seattlepi">{{cite news
 | title = Microsoft gets OK to stake claim for interactivity patent
 | url = http://www.seattlepi.com/business/317739_msftpatent30.html
 | publisher = Hearst Seattle Media
 | date = 2007-05-30
 | access-date = 2009-10-08
}}</ref>
The USPTO ruled in favor of Eolas on that matter in September 2007.{{Citation needed|date=May 2011}}

Microsoft and Eolas agreed in July 2007 to delay a pending re-trial, in order to negotiate a settlement. On August 27, 2007, Eolas reported to its shareholders that a settlement had been reached and that Eolas expected to pay a substantial dividend as a result; the exact amount and terms of the settlement were not disclosed.<ref name="seattlepi2">{{cite news
 | title = High-profile, 8-year patent dispute settled
 | url = http://www.seattlepi.com/business/329766_msfteolas31.html
 | publisher = Hearst Seattle Media
 | date = 2007-08-30
 | access-date = 2009-10-08
}}</ref>

In October 2009, Eolas sued a number of large corporations for infringement of the same patent. The 22 sued corporations include Adobe, Amazon.com, Apple, Argosy Publishing, Blockbuster, CDW Corp., Citigroup, eBay, Frito-Lay, The Go Daddy Group, Google, J.C. Penney Co. Inc., JPMorgan Chase & Co., New Frontier Media Inc., Office Depot Inc., Perot Systems Corp., Playboy Enterprises International Inc., Rent-A-Center Inc., Staples Inc., Sun Microsystems Inc., Texas Instruments Inc., Yahoo! Inc., and YouTube LLC.<ref name="marketwatch-oct09">{{cite news
 | title = Eolas Technologies Files Infringement Lawsuit
 | url = http://www.marketwatch.com/story/eolas-technologies-files-infringement-lawsuit-2009-10-06
 | publisher = The Wall Street Journal
 | date = 2009-10-06
 | access-date = 2009-11-08
}}</ref>  Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols, writing in [[Computerworld]]'s opinion section, called Eolas a [[patent troll]] after these lawsuits were initiated.<ref>{{cite web|first=Steven J. |last=Vaughan-Nichols |url=http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9139150/Opinion_Eolas_might_just_sue_every_last_lousy_company_in_creation |title=Opinion: Eolas might just sue every last, lousy company in creation |publisher=Computerworld |date=October 8, 2009 |access-date=February 11, 2012}}</ref> As of June 2011, a number of these companies, including [[Texas Instruments]], [[Oracle Corporation|Oracle]] and [[JPMorgan Chase]] have signed licensing deals with Eolas, while others are still litigating.<ref name="pcworld1"/>

In February 2012, a Texas jury found that some of the claims in two of Eolas' patents were invalid after testimony from several defendants including Tim Berners-Lee and Pei-Yuan Wei, credited as creator of the Viola browser.  The testimony professed that the Viola browser included Eolas' claimed plugin invention before their conception date (September 7, 1993). There is "substantial evidence that Viola was publicly known and used" before the plaintiffs' alleged conception date, it added.  The ruling effectively ended a pending lawsuit against Yahoo, Google, Amazon and JC Penney.<ref>{{cite news|last=Samuels|first=Julie|title=Why the Patent System Doesn't Play Well with Software: If Eolas Went the Other Way|url=https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/02/why-patent-system-doesnt-play|newspaper=Electronic Frontier Foundation|date=February 15, 2012}}</ref>

On July 23, 2013, the [[US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit]], which has nationwide jurisdiction, affirmed a Texas federal court which had ruled in July 2012 that several claims relating to the two patents in the suit were invalid, a ruling which Eolas had appealed.<ref>{{cite news|title=Patent firm Eolas loses appeal in Web lawsuit against 22 companies |url=http://www.techcentral.ie/22212/patent-firm-eolas-loses-appeal-in-web-lawsuit-affecting-22-companies#ixzz2ZuqJ8BbH |archive-url=https://archive.today/20130724010241/http://www.techcentral.ie/22212/patent-firm-eolas-loses-appeal-in-web-lawsuit-affecting-22-companies%23ixzz2ZuqJ8BbH#ixzz2ZuqJ8BbH |url-status=dead|publisher=TechCentral.ie |date=July 23, 2013 |archive-date=2013-07-24 }}</ref>

After the [[United States Patent and Trademark Office|US Patent Office]] considered the evidence asserted at the 2012 trial, including Viola, it granted Eolas a new patent in November 2015 with claims which generally cover cloud computing on the Web.<ref name="patent3"/>  Eolas then filed a new lawsuit against Google, Amazon and Walmart.<ref name="District-Court-Eolas-Technologies-v.-Amazon.com-02-24-16.pdf "/> A 2022 Federal court ruling invalidated the cloud computing patent, saying the patent covered only abstract ideas. Eolas appealed the ruling, but the lower court's ruling was upheld. In October 2024, the [[Supreme Court of the United States]] declined to hear a further challenge by Eolas to the lower court ruling.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Brittain |first=Blake |date=2024-10-07 |title=US Supreme Court rejects Eolas patent case against Amazon, Google |url=https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/us-supreme-court-rejects-eolas-patent-case-against-amazon-google-2024-10-07/ |access-date=2025-03-11 |work=[[Reuters]]}}</ref>