Apple escapes patent suit after US judge tosses complaint
A patent lawsuit brought by Golden Bridge Technology against Apple has failed in court, with a U.S. District Judge deciding that Apple isn't infringing on Golden Bridge's intellectual property.
Sued over wireless technologies in a number of its products, Apple for now will not be held liable to Golden Bridge, Bloomberg reported on Monday. Golden Bridge, though, is preparing to appeal the decision.
Golden Bridge, an intellectual property licensing firm, sued Apple in 2010, alleging that Apple had infringed on patents it holds regarding power level maintenance in CDMA 3G technologies. Golden Bridge had also filed suit against AT&T and Motorola Mobility, and, in a separate case, Amazon over the same technologies. The motions against AT&T and Motorola had previously been dropped.
Apple moved for the case to be dismissed, asserting that Golden Bridge's claims were either invalid, obvious, or anticipated by patents held by Ericsson. The case had been scheduled to go before a jury, but U.S. District Judge Sue Robinson canceled the trial, finding Golden Bridge's case insufficient.
"The record evidence remains consistent with the finding of non-infringement," Robinson wrote in an order dismissing the case.
Apple has not responded to requests for comment on the ruling. Attorneys for Golden Bridge expressed their disappointment and signaled their intent to continue pursuing the action.
"We respect the judge greatly," Michael Kelly, a Golden Bridge attorney told Bloomberg, "but justice wasn't done and of course we will appeal."
Sued over wireless technologies in a number of its products, Apple for now will not be held liable to Golden Bridge, Bloomberg reported on Monday. Golden Bridge, though, is preparing to appeal the decision.
Golden Bridge, an intellectual property licensing firm, sued Apple in 2010, alleging that Apple had infringed on patents it holds regarding power level maintenance in CDMA 3G technologies. Golden Bridge had also filed suit against AT&T and Motorola Mobility, and, in a separate case, Amazon over the same technologies. The motions against AT&T and Motorola had previously been dropped.
Apple moved for the case to be dismissed, asserting that Golden Bridge's claims were either invalid, obvious, or anticipated by patents held by Ericsson. The case had been scheduled to go before a jury, but U.S. District Judge Sue Robinson canceled the trial, finding Golden Bridge's case insufficient.
"The record evidence remains consistent with the finding of non-infringement," Robinson wrote in an order dismissing the case.
Apple has not responded to requests for comment on the ruling. Attorneys for Golden Bridge expressed their disappointment and signaled their intent to continue pursuing the action.
"We respect the judge greatly," Michael Kelly, a Golden Bridge attorney told Bloomberg, "but justice wasn't done and of course we will appeal."
Comments
Does anyone know whether this is another case for technology that would be covered already under FRAND terms?
-1
Quote:
Originally Posted by IQatEdo
Does anyone know whether this is another case for technology that would be covered already under FRAND terms?
Only if Apple had licensed the tech from Ericsson, and they never claimed in the trial that they did.
This is a bit of an oddball case. It was not just about whether Apple infringed, but whether Golden owned the patent or did Ericsson.
The judge had previously said that the ownership was hard enough to determine, that it should be left up to the jury.
However, the ownership question became moot when she canceled the jury trial altogether, on the grounds that there was no proof that Apple implemented one of the required claim methods, and thus could not be found to infringe either directly or indirectly.
--
The interesting part about this was that it was about CDMA power control, and partly about preventing a runaway power ramp up. iOS had just such a bug back around version 3.0 (?), that caused AT&T iPhones using GSM 3G (WCDMA) to force other users off an AT&T cell at times, due to the iPhone ramping up power levels.
These companies need to get sued by all the large corporations they are trying to sue and just get squashed like the irritating little bugs they are!
Quote:
Originally Posted by MagMan1979
"Golden Bridge, an intellectual property licensing firm" = PATENT TROLL!
These companies need to get sued by all the large corporations they are trying to sue and just get squashed like the irritating little bugs they are!
Gosh, I bet you didn't feel that way about protecting IP when Samsung was 'stealing' Apple's, didja?
Quote:
Originally Posted by boredumb
Gosh, I bet you didn't feel that way about protecting IP when Samsung was 'stealing' Apple's, didja?
Let's talk about pre iphone and iphone era....where u gone?
Quote:
Originally Posted by boredumb
Gosh, I bet you didn't feel that way about protecting IP when Samsung was 'stealing' Apple's, didja?
Oh please, this is about the stupidest comparison I have ever seen. There is a huge difference between an npe (none practicing entity) aka "patent troll" and samsung. NPE's make all there money buying others patents then suing everyone for cash, Samsung makes all there money Copying Apple and ripping off there ip.
The difference is that one has no product and never will the other does and copies without conscience.
Originally Posted by boredumb
Gosh, I bet you didn't feel that way about protecting IP when Samsung was 'stealing' Apple's, didja?
I'm going to assume that you're being sarcastic here, because no intelligent person would compare a company that MAKES NO PRODUCTS AND DOES NOT USE ITS PATENTS with Apple.