top of page

Is Microsoft Facing a $242M Verdict in the Cortana Case?

Microsoft Cortana Case

A federal jury in Delaware has ruled that Microsoft must pay $242 million to IPA Technologies after determining that Microsoft’s Cortana virtual assistant violated an IPA patent. After a week-long trial, the jury found Microsoft’s voice recognition technology had infringed on IPA's patent related to communication software.


IPA is a subsidiary of Wi-LAN, which is jointly owned by Canada's Quarterhill and two investment firms. They acquired the patent from SRI International's Siri Inc., whose technology was used in Apple's Siri. Microsoft denies any infringement and plans to appeal.


IPA initially sued Microsoft in 2018, accusing it of infringing patents related to personal digital assistants. The case eventually focused on one patent. Microsoft claimed that it did not infringe and that the patent itself was invalid.


IPA has also taken legal action against Google and Amazon. Amazon won its case against IPA in 2021, while the lawsuit against Google remains ongoing.


Key Points

  1. Microsoft has been ordered to pay $242 million after a jury found its Cortana software violated an IPA Technologies patent related to voice-recognition technology.

  2. Microsoft plans to appeal the decision, maintaining that it did not infringe on IPA's patents and believes the patent is invalid.


FAQs

Q1. Why does Microsoft have to pay $242 million to IPA Technologies?

A jury found that Microsoft’s Cortana assistant infringed an IPA Technologies patent related to voice-recognition technology. Microsoft disagrees and plans to appeal the decision.


Q2. Who is IPA Technologies and how are they connected to the patent issue?

IPA Technologies is a subsidiary of Wi-LAN, a company that licenses patents. They obtained the patent from SRI International's Siri Inc, which was acquired by Apple. IPA claims Microsoft violated its patent rights.


Q3. How did Microsoft respond to the jury’s decision?

Microsoft insists it did not infringe on the patent and is confident that the patent is invalid. The company intends to appeal the jury's decision.

Comments


bottom of page