Owen disputes all of these assertions. "First of all, the invention was not contained in any earlier product and that was exhaustively reviewed at trial both by the jury and by the judge. i4i had a duty of candour to file all applicable prior art and it did so. Moreover, the judge held a separate inequitable conduct hearing that confirmed i4i had met the standard. It is utter nonsense, as the old technology Microsoft is alluding to had nothing to do with i4i's invention," he told Network World. "It is incorrect and it is another unsubstantiated Microsoft allegation/declaration to say i4i sold their product and did not patent the invention within the one-year time limit. This is wrong." (.) 

Owen added that the missing source code is "a misunderstanding of the facts and i4i was proven to have met its duty of candour and disclosed everything applicable to the patent office."

The hearing was conducted by attorneys for hire who are experts at arguing in front of the Supreme Court. Thomas Hungar of Gibson Dunn represented Microsoft in Monday's hearing. Hungar served as deputy solicitor general of the United States during the George W. Bush administration. Seth Waxman, of WilmerHale, who was solicitor general in the Clinton administration, argued on behalf of i4i. The United States argued in favor of i4i's position, and was represented by Malcolm L. Stewart, deputy solicitor general.

Intellectual property attorneys near and far have traveled to the court to watch the proceedings. "It is a very exciting, good argument," Culbert said. "The justices jump in and pepper the lawyer with questions -- the justices are brilliant and ask good questions, and the lawyers that do arguing are also brilliant."

i4i had accrued 22 amicus briefs in its corner, which represent more than 100 companies, organizations and individuals, including the U.S. government, individuals from the military and venture capitalists. Meanwhile Microsoft roped in 20 amicus briefs, which represent about 60 companies and individuals, including Google, , , Intel, , the Electronic Frontier Foundation and 37 law and economics professors.