The case dates back to 1999 when the University of California and Eolas sued Microsoft, claiming that IE was infringing a patent for a method that allows web browsers to access interactive application programs.
The patent, issued to the University in 1998, has been licensed exclusively to Eolas since 1994 but according to Eolas' lawyer Martin Lueck:
"Facing competition from Netscape Navigator in the mid-1990s, Microsoft updated its Explorer browser by using Eolas' technology and subsequently bundled it with all of its Windows operating systems since 1995."
The jury agreed, and awarded damages of $520.6 million to Eolas, plus interest. Microsoft is in the process of appealing the verdict, but earlier this week detailed changes it is to make to the browser so as to remove any possible infringement.
As part of the appeals process on Monday, both Eolas and Microsoft filed motions with the US District Court in Chicago. Eolas asked the court to grant an injunction preventing Microsoft from distributing Internet Explorer, where it infringed on Eolas' patent.
"If they're not going to pony up and take a license under the patent, then they shouldn't be using it," Martin Lueck told CNet News.
He added that Microsoft could still distribute the browser if it was being used by an "application provider or a corporate intranet that has an Eolas plug-in license", the report says.
But, said Lueck, "Eolas and the university are willing to resolve the case on a very reasonable basis". He added, "In view of the amount of the verdict and the accrued prejudgment interest, we'd be willing to give them a paid-up license, if they were willing to take out a license."
"That might change in the future, if they continue to refuse the deal," continued Lueck. "The quid pro quo would be settle it now – not force us to litigate for two, three, four years or whatever it is that they have in mind."
Michael Wallent, a general manager in Microsoft's Windows division, told CNet News that the offer was not reasonable, and that the software giant was concentrating on changing Internet Explorer.
"The changes we rolled out for IE are modest and will not have significant impact on consumers or the web community as a whole," said Wallent. "Based on that, the idea that we would pay more than $630 million [the jury's $520 million plus interest] to get rid of a single mouse click on a small fraction of web pages is not something that we're entertaining."
Microsoft asked the court to grant a new trial on the dispute claiming, among other things, that in the original trial the court had refused to allow evidence of prior art – technology created before the granting of the Eolas patent – that would have invalidated the patent.