or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Judge orders Apple to halt patent litigation against Kodak
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Judge orders Apple to halt patent litigation against Kodak

post #1 of 16
Thread Starter 
A U.S. Bankruptcy Court judge on Thursday declared that Apple must not move forward with its patent suit against Eastman Kodak, and barred the iPhone maker from instigating any future litigation involving the bankrupt company.

Judge Allan Gropper's decision covers Apple's pending complaint over a digital photo patent, as well as a separate monetary damages suit the company is looking to level against Kodak, reports the Wall Street Journal.

The pending litigation regarding how camera users view digital photographs on LCD screens was automatically stopped when Kodak filed for bankruptcy, but Apple sought to unfreeze the stay so that litigation could continue.

A company that files for Chapter 11 protection usually receives certain safeguards against pending litigation so that it can reorganize, and Judge Gropper repeatedly mentioned that Kodak has only been bankrupt since January.

Judge Gropper, who is in charge of Kodak's Chapter 11 case, shot down an attempt by Apple to move the suit from a court in Rochester, New York to Manhattan for a jury trial. He went on to say that in spite of his decision, it is possible that the two companies could continue the battle outside of bankruptcy court.

"The first 45 days are difficult in any bankruptcy case; the debtor has dozens of balls in the air, dozens of matters to take care of," Judge Gropper told an Apple lawyer at Thursday's hearing. "What's the need for immediate relief?"




Apple was looking to block Kodak's auction of an estimated $2.2 billion to $2.6 billion in patents, which needs to be complete by June in order to meet a stipulation of the $950 million loan keeping the company afloat during the bankruptcy process.

[ View article on AppleInsider ]
post #2 of 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

A U.S. Bankruptcy Court judge on Thursday declared that Apple must not move forward with its patent suit against Eastman Kodak, and barred the iPhone maker from instigating any future litigation involving the bankrupt company.

Judge Allan Gropper's decision covers Apple's pending complaint over a digital photo patent, as well as a separate monetary damages suit the company is looking to level against Kodak, reports the Wall Street Journal.

The pending litigation regarding how camera users view digital photographs on LCD screens was automatically stopped when Kodak filed for bankruptcy, but Apple sought to unfreeze the stay so that litigation could continue.

A company that files for Chapter 11 protection usually receives certain safeguards against pending litigation so that it can reorganize, and Judge Gropper repeatedly mentioned that Kodak has only been bankrupt since January.

Judge Gropper, who is in charge of Kodak's Chapter 11 case, shot down an attempt by Apple to move the suit from a court in Rochester, New York to Manhattan for a jury trial. He went on to say that in spite of his decision, it is possible that the two companies could continue the battle outside of bankruptcy court.

"The first 45 days are difficult in any bankruptcy case; the debtor has dozens of balls in the air, dozens of matters to take care of," Judge Gropper told an Apple lawyer at Thursday's hearing. "What's the need for immediate relief?"

Apple was looking to block Kodak's auction of an estimated $2.2 billion to $2.6 billion in patents, which needs to be complete by June in order to meet a stipulation of the $950 million loan keeping the company afloat during the bankruptcy process.

[ View article on AppleInsider ]

here we go - i am gonna get some popcorn...
post #3 of 16
By the same token, all contracts entered into by Kodak x number of days before filing bankruptcy are considered void by the bankruptcy court, and Kodak can't possibly enter into any new ones without court-approval now. Apple's patents should remain safe.

I have worked for a company in bankruptcy, and they couldn't do anything without the judges approval, not even pay employees.
post #4 of 16
A Reuters news article today (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...82715S20120308) notes:

"But while Gropper denied that request, he agreed that the case needs to be resolved sooner rather than later, and in a way that does not interfere with Kodak's ongoing plans to sell its patent portfolio and emerge from bankruptcy.

"I would request that the parties report to me on their efforts to come up with a procedure that truly works," he said.
"

Looks to me like a decision that is somewhat narrow, and buys Kodak a little bit of time get their bankruptcy papers in order. Perhaps someone in the know can elucidate?
post #5 of 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

A Reuters news article today (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...82715S20120308) notes:

"But while Gropper denied that request, he agreed that the case needs to be resolved sooner rather than later, and in a way that does not interfere with Kodak's ongoing plans to sell its patent portfolio and emerge from bankruptcy.

"I would request that the parties report to me on their efforts to come up with a procedure that truly works," he said.
"

Looks to me like a decision that is somewhat narrow, and buys Kodak a little bit of time get their bankruptcy papers in order. Perhaps someone in the know can elucidate?

Even Gropper admits that his order is meaningless:
Quote:
He went on to say that in spite of his decision, it is possible that the two companies could continue the battle outside of bankruptcy court.

The fundamental problem is that Gropper does not have jurisdiction to ban Apple from filing in other courts. He can rule against them as a creditor and try to prevent them from making a claim in the bankruptcy court, but Apple's claim is that the patents are not Kodak's property - and therefore not subject to Gropper's decision.

This one will be appealed.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #6 of 16
Maybe I'm a bit thick here, but have I got this right:
Kodak and Apple have ongoing patent disputes. Kodak files bankruptcy. Kodak agrees to sell patents, and some of which are in dispute Apple. Apple files to have patent dispute resolved. Judge says 'no' to Apple's request.

Does this mean that Kodak can go ahead with selling the patents Apple is claiming they own, or are they in limbo while the bankruptcy is lined out?
post #7 of 16
Disappointing since the very patents that Kodak hopes to sell may not be theirs to sell. This dates way back to the first digital consumer camera, which was invented by Apple who worked with kodak, with the agreement that any IP from the joint venture would continue to be owned by Apple.

I wonder what happens if they do not resolve this beforehand and Kodak then sells said patent to a third party after which it is found out they didn't own it to sell?
iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 24" Dual Core 3.06 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 4
Reply
iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 24" Dual Core 3.06 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 4
Reply
post #8 of 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJRumpy View Post

Disappointing since the very patents that Kodak hopes to sell may not be theirs to sell. This dates way back to the first digital consumer camera, which was invented by Apple who worked with kodak, with the agreement that any IP from the joint venture would continue to be owned by Apple.

I wonder what happens if they do not resolve this beforehand and Kodak then sells said patent to a third party after which it is found out they didn't own it to sell?

Quote:
Originally Posted by F1Ferrari View Post

Maybe I'm a bit thick here, but have I got this right:
Kodak and Apple have ongoing patent disputes. Kodak files bankruptcy. Kodak agrees to sell patents, and some of which are in dispute Apple. Apple files to have patent dispute resolved. Judge says 'no' to Apple's request.

Does this mean that Kodak can go ahead with selling the patents Apple is claiming they own, or are they in limbo while the bankruptcy is lined out?

Kodak can't sell anything without the bankruptcy court's approval - and that won't happen any time soon.

Meanwhile, if it even looks like it could happen, Apple will get a stay to prevent it. Basically, this decision is meaningless.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #9 of 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Meanwhile, if it even looks like it could happen, Apple will get a stay to prevent it. Basically, this decision is meaningless.

Ok, that's what I was taking away from this announcement.
post #10 of 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Kodak can't sell anything without the bankruptcy court's approval - and that won't happen any time soon.

Meanwhile, if it even looks like it could happen, Apple will get a stay to prevent it. Basically, this decision is meaningless.

And you wonder why some readers might get the mistaken impression that you have legal training? You post in such absolute terms you lead them to think you know more about the law than trained lawyers and judges.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #11 of 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

And you wonder why some readers might get the mistaken impression that you have legal training? You post in such absolute terms you lead them to think you know more about the law than trained lawyers and judges.

No, it proves he can answer questions. In what way was his answer wrong?

If I ask a question about a band, I won't assume whomever answers is a musical historian. If I ask a question about auto repair, I won't assume whomever answers is a trained mechanic. If you assume he's a lawyer because he answers questions, that's your assumption.
post #12 of 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by F1Ferrari View Post

No, it proves he can answer questions. In what way was his answer wrong?

If I ask a question about a band, I won't assume whomever answers is a musical historian. If I ask a question about auto repair, I won't assume whomever answers is a trained mechanic. If you assume he's a lawyer because he answers questions, that's your assumption.

I never said he was wrong. I don't know any more about law than he does. Would you assume the band question or the auto question was correctly answered simply because you got a reply? Do you assume this legal question was correctly answered because it was a reply?

I originally thought he had legal training based on his tone with previous comments. As an attorney his opinion would carry more weight. I believe others, especially casual visitors, could also misunderstand that he offers a layman's opinion rather than one firmly based on the case facts and matters of law when he comments on legal matters. I made the mention simply because he might not realize the impression his posts leave and why I asked him whether he was an attorney a couple of times before he answered in the negative.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #13 of 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

I never said he was wrong. I don't know any more about law than he does. Would you assume the band question or the auto question was correctly answered simply because you got a reply? Do you assume this legal question was correctly answered because it was a reply?

I originally thought he had legal training based on his tone with previous comments. As an attorney his opinion would carry more weight. I believe others, especially casual visitors, could also misunderstand that he offers a layman's opinion rather than one firmly based on the case facts and matters of law when he comments on legal matters. I made the mention simply because he might not realize the impression his posts leave and why I asked him whether he was an attorney a couple of times before he answered in the negative.

BTW you know what happens if you "assume" ?... you make an "ass" of "u" and "me" ... you should also know that free opinions are worth exactly that... nothing.
post #14 of 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

I never said he was wrong. I don't know any more about law than he does. Would you assume the band question or the auto question was correctly answered simply because you got a reply? Do you assume this legal question was correctly answered because it was a reply?

I originally thought he had legal training based on his tone with previous comments. As an attorney his opinion would carry more weight. I believe others, especially casual visitors, could also misunderstand that he offers a layman's opinion rather than one firmly based on the case facts and matters of law when he comments on legal matters. I made the mention simply because he might not realize the impression his posts leave and why I asked him whether he was an attorney a couple of times before he answered in the negative.

I've never claimed to be an attorney and made it clear that I'm not. It's not my fault that you simply jump to conclusions all the time.

And my tone is what it is because I've been doing patent stuff long enough to know what I'm talking about.

As for the rest, if someone comes here for legal advice on patent issues, they deserve what they get.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #15 of 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by haar View Post

BTW you know what happens if you "assume" ?... you make an "ass" of "u" and "me" ... you should also know that free opinions are worth exactly that... nothing.

I had no intent to make an ass of "u".
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #16 of 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

I've never claimed to be an attorney and made it clear that I'm not. It's not my fault that you simply jump to conclusions all the time.

And my tone is what it is because I've been doing patent stuff long enough to know what I'm talking about.

As for the rest, if someone comes here for legal advice on patent issues, they deserve what they get.

Then just carry on as you apparently did intend to sound authoritive and well-versed in legal matters of all kinds. I wasn't sure you realized it, therefor the mention.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Judge orders Apple to halt patent litigation against Kodak