Patent Case Watch

Patent opinions from the Eastern District of Texas and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Weekly Digest
Fed. Cir.

Amado v. Microsoft Corp., No. 05-1531 (Fed. Cir. June 14, 2006)

Affirmed
Injunction
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 05-1531
Decided
June 14, 2006
Judge
Per curiam
Document
Precedential Opinion
Length
1 page
Download Opinion (PDF)

NOTE: Pursuant to Fed. Cir. R. 47.6, this disposition

is not citable as precedent. It is a public record.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

05-1531, -1581

CARLOS ARMANDO AMADO,

Plaintiff-Cross Appellant,

v.

MICROSOFT CORPORATION,

Defendant-Appellant.

DECIDED: June 14, 2006

Before SCHALL, LINN, and DYK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

We have considered the various contentions of the appeal and cross-appeal, and we affirm in all respects. However, in affirming, we wish to make clear that we do not read the district court’s August 2, 2005, order—requiring the creation of an escrow account as a condition of the stay of the permanent injunction—as having determined the ultimate disposition of the funds required to be deposited in the escrow account. When the district court makes that determination, any party believing itself aggrieved by that order may appeal to this court. No costs.

Text extracted from the official PDF and reflowed for reading. It is not a certified transcript — the PDF linked above is the authoritative document.

Analysis is coming soon.

A plain-English account of the issues, facts and holding, written by Patent Case Watch. The opinion itself — its full text, its PDF and everything else on this page — stays free to read for everyone, always.

Cite this opinion

Amado v. Microsoft Corp., No. 05-1531 (Fed. Cir. June 14, 2006).

Record ID
CAFC-05-1531-20060614
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-05-1531-20060614

No reporter citation is shown because the official source does not supply one; none is inferred here. Check the opinion and a citator before relying on this form.

Source: Federal Circuit opinions and orders · retrieved August 15, 2026 · Report an error