April 23, 2013
December 21, 2012
December 18, 2012
December 7, 2012
In October, as pointed out in Samsung filings with U.S. District Lucy Koh, we told you that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office issued a non-final decision that declared 20 claims related to Apple’s rubber-banding patent invalid. While Samsung and Apple were back in court yesterday regarding post-trial motions, today FossPatents reported (via MacRumors) the USPTO has issued another non-final ruling declaring yet another Apple multitouch patent invalid.
This time it’s a touchscreen patent, commonly called “the Steve Jobs patent,” that courts previously deemed valid in cases against Samsung and Motorola in the past:
This week, the USPTO issued a first Office action rejecting all 20 claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,479,949 on a “touch screen device, method, and graphical user interface for determining commands by applying heuristics”, which has been referred to by many people, including Apple’s own lawyers, as “the Steve Jobs patent”.
The touchscreen heuristics ‘949 patent has also been asserted against Motorola. Judge Posner declared large parts of the patent invalid and identified only some minor potential infringement on Motorola’s part that he decided would not warrant injunctive relief even if Apple prevailed on whatever little was left of its related claims. expand full story
November 16, 2012
Bloomberg reported Apple and Google’s Motorola unit are currently in negotiations to resolve their several patent disputes and have apparently exchanged “proposals on using binding arbitration to reach a licensing agreement” for standard essential patents. According to the report, Apple said in a court filing that “such an agreement could lead to a global settlement of all of their patent disputes.”
The companies have been exchanging proposals on using binding arbitration to reach a licensing agreement over patents that are essential to comply with industry standards on how phones operate. Such an agreement could lead to a global settlement of all of their patent disputes, Apple said in a filing yesterday.
“Apple is also interested in resolving its dispute with Motorola completely and agrees that arbitration may be the best vehicle to resolve the parties’ dispute,” Apple said in the filing… Motorola Mobility first raised the issue of arbitration on Nov. 5, before a federal judge in Madison, Wisconsin, threw out a breach-of-contract case that Apple had filed. The Cupertino, California-based maker of the iPhone claimed its mobile-phone competitor was misusing standard-essential patents to demand unreasonable royalties.
Earlier this month, Apple and HTC announced they reached a global settlement in multiple patent-related cases that some analysts estimated could be worth as much as $180 million to $280 million annually. As for Samsung, following the HTC settlement, many reports quoted Samsung’s Shin Jong-kyun as claiming the company does not “intend to (negotiate) at all.” expand full story
November 5, 2012
According to a report from Reuters, Google issued a statement that a Wisconsin federal court has decided to dismiss Apple’s “patent lawsuit with prejudice.” The report explained this particular case was brought on by Apple in part to determine what the courts considered fair and reasonable licensing terms for the patent portfolio Google acquired when purchasing Motorola.
Google said in a statement that it is still interested in making a deal with Apple “at a reasonable and non-discriminatory rate in line with industry standards”:
“We’re pleased that the court has dismissed Apple’s lawsuit with prejudice,” a Google spokeswoman said in an emailed statement on Monday…”Motorola has long offered licensing to our extensive patent portfolio at a reasonable and non-discriminatory rate in line with industry standards,” Google said in its statement. “We remain interested in reaching an agreement with Apple.”
Reuters explained the case being dismissed with prejudice means it is officially over at the trial court level. However, Apple can still appeal: expand full story
September 18, 2012
August 28, 2012
Motorola Mobility agreed to license its standards-essential patents in Germany to Apple, according to a filing on Monday (via FossPatents). In the deal, which chiefly includes cellular standard-essential patents, Apple agreed that it is legally responsible for past damages in connection to the patents. The timeframe for the treaty’s conception is unknown at the moment, with both firms also neglecting to reveal royalty rates in the paperwork. However, the courts in Germany could determine those rates based on FRAND policies. The admittedly biased, for-hire blogger Florian Mueller explained:
In a filing made late on Monday (August 27, 2012) with the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, the Google subsidiary has now confirmed the recent conclusion of a standard-essential patent license agreement with Apple. Under the agreement, Apple is now licensed to use some if not all of Motorola’s standard-essential patents in Germany, though the parties have not yet agreed on a FRAND royalty rate, which will ultimately have to be set by German courts unless they agree on a rate prior to its judicial determination.
August 23, 2012
August 17, 2012
Google’s new Motorola Division has filed a patent lawsuit against Apple with the United States International Trade Commission, according to the Wall Street Journal. In this lawsuit, Motorola claims that Apple violated seven patents with its iPhone, iPad, and iPod touch iOS products and even Macs.
As detailed by Bloomberg, the specific patents in question involve Apple’s Siri voice-control system, location-based reminders, push email notifications, media playback on phones.
Earlier this year, Apple’s case against Motorola over four patents was dismissed. Notably, todays claims by Motorola comes just after the close of the high-profile patent trial between Apple and Google Android-partner Samsung. The two company’s completed their closing remarks today, with jury deliberations scheduled for next week.
August 1, 2012
July 17, 2012
A German court ruled this morning that the “popular” Android-powered tablet does not violate the patented look of Apple’s tablet. The Duesseldorf court discarded one claim by the Google-owned manufacturer, however, about the iPad’s design patent being inapplicable.
- Apple initially sued Motorola for allegedly infringing three iPad designs with the Xoom. It sought to have the device banned across Europe.
- Although the judges ruled Motorola’s Xoom doesn’t infringe on the iPad, the court rejected a counterclaim brought by Motorola alleging the iPad’s design patent is invalid, a spokesman for the court said.
- As the court ultimately rejected both parties’ claims, it ordered Apple to pay two-thirds of costs and Motorola to pay a third, the spokesman added.
- […] During two hearings prior to the ruling, the presiding judge had indicated the court was leaning in Motorola’s favor. Judge Johanna Brueckner-Hofmann said in March that the court considered the evenly bent back and shaped edges on the front of the Xoom tablet sufficient to give the product individual character.
Apple is also suing Motorola in a Mannheim court for allegedly breaching a patent on multi-touch enabled devices.
Get the full report at FoxBusiness.
July 5, 2012
Reuters interviewed the U.S. judge today who dismissed Apple’s patent court case against Motorola, and the details behind the jurist’s reasoning for tossing the lawsuit are as interesting as they are controversial.
Richard Posner sits on the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago and disputes whether software and related tech industries should even have patents for their products.
“It’s not clear that we really need patents in most industries,” said Posner, referring to the slew of features in smartphones that are legally protected. “You just have this proliferation of patents. It’s a problem.”
Posner, 73, argued the pharmaceutical industry better deserved protection for its intellectual property because of the, as Reuters coined it, “enormous investment it takes to create a successful drug.” He tossed Apple’s lawsuit against Google’s Motorola Mobility last month and denied an injunction against the sale of Motorola devices using Apple’s patented technology.
The judge attributed Apple’s scramble to attack competitors allegedly using its technology to a “constant struggle for survival.”
“As in any jungle, the animals will use all the means at their disposal, all their teeth and claws that are permitted by the ecosystem,” Posner contended.
June 22, 2012
The Verge details a U.S. federal court document regarding today’s hearing of Apple’s patent lawsuit against Motorola. The judge presiding over the case, Judge Richard Posner, has dismissed the case in its entirety. Apple’s claim against Motorola includes four patents. These patents cover wireless connection technology and user interface design. Judge Posner also dismissed the possibility of an injunction against Motorola. Earlier this month, the same judge dismissed an Apple vs. Motorola hearing, but today’s dismissal appears to be the final one regarding these four patents. Apple still has the opportunity to request an appeal. Court document embedded below: expand full story
June 20, 2012
June 7, 2012
June 5, 2012
June 2, 2012
May 22, 2012
April 24, 2012
According to a report from Bloomberg, U.S. International Trade Commission Judge Thomas Pender has ruled in favor (PDF) of Motorola and claimed Apple’s devices infringe on one Android-related patent owned by the company. The ruling is only a partial victory for Motorola’s attempt to receive an injunction on iPhones and iPads, because the judge’s decision will still have to be reviewed before import blocks can be achieved:
ITC Judge Thomas Pender said Apple violated one of four Motorola Mobility patent rights. The patent relates to Wi-Fi technology. The judge’s findings are subject to review by the six-member commission, which has the power to block imports that infringe U.S. patents.
As for the Wi-Fi patent in question (# 6,246,697), Apple spokesperson Kristin Huguet told AllThingsD that Motorola refused to license its industry-standard technology on “reasonable terms”: expand full story