or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple given second chance at Motorola injunction
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple given second chance at Motorola injunction

post #1 of 13
Thread Starter 
Judge Richard Posner on Thursday decided to grant Apple an injunction hearing against Motorola, reversing his tentative ruling to reject the case last week.

After ruling one week ago that Apple failed to prove injury in its case against Motorola, Seventh Circuit Judge sitting by designation on the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois Richard Posner has decided to grant the company's request to a hearing that could see the sales ban of certain Motorola products, reports FOSS Patents.

The decision is not a complete reversal of Judge Posner's original rejection order, however, as the distinguished jurist qualified his statements last week Thursday by saying he would deliberate on whether to move forward with Apple's motion for injunctive relief. A follow-up final statement on the issue was scheduled to be released that same day though no such document was published.

Judge Posner's decision to grant Apple a hearing is a double-edged sword for the iPhone maker as Motorola Mobility is also allowed to argue for injunctive relief. That road may be a rocky one for the now Google-owned company because it has entangled itself with a number of FRAND-based lawsuits and will have to address those assertions as they pertain to any future proceedings in Judge Posner's court.

"?if Motorola means to argue for injunctive relief it should be prepared to address the bearing of FRAND on the injunction analysis," Judge Posner wrote in Thursday's order.



In previous statements regarding the hearing, Judge Posner was critical of arguments made by both sides, calling some "frivolous" and "vague." Apple's legal tactics were directly called into question at one point when a motion to reconsider was called "troubling."

Both parties are slated to submit their respective briefs by Monday, June 18 for an in-court hearing scheduled for June 20.
post #2 of 13
I said this could happen, and that he hadn't actually made a decision yet.
post #3 of 13
The 'distinguished jurist' is sounding and acting utterly confused.

Looks like it is setting up for an appeal regardless of which side wins/loses.
post #4 of 13
And the Apple-hostile forums and bloggers were having such a good time reporting how Judge Posner bitch-slapped Apple the evil patent troll into next Tuesday.... Let the wailing and gnashing of teeth commence.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #5 of 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

The 'distinguished jurist' is sounding and acting utterly confused.
Looks like it is setting up for an appeal regardless of which side wins/loses.

Don't forget that this is already a Federal Appeals court. He does get overturned, but not very often.
post #6 of 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

And the Apple-hostile forums and bloggers were having such a good time reporting how Judge Posner bitch-slapped Apple the evil patent troll into next Tuesday.... Let the wailing and gnashing of teeth commence.

The interesting thing here is that even if this was over, Apple didn't lose. If anything, it was Motorola that had the worse time of it as their attempts at an injunction over their FRAND patent, and it was I believe, reduced to one, had been denied.
post #7 of 13
Posner is an appeals court judge, but this case is not on appeal. He is sitting by designation as a district judge.

http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/02/apple-points-itc-to-judge-posners-take.html
post #8 of 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post


Don't forget that this is already a Federal Appeals court. He does get overturned, but not very often.

 

Frankly I think this extra window is precisely for that reason, so when it is appealed either way, it will be shown both sides had numerous chances at this.

I'm not a pessimist. I'm an optimist, with experience.
Reply
I'm not a pessimist. I'm an optimist, with experience.
Reply
post #9 of 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Don't forget that this is already a Federal Appeals court. He does get overturned, but not very often.

No. You are incorrect. This is the trial court action.

J. Posner is a senior - status 7th Circuit (appellate court) Judge - but he is sitting by designation as the trial court (district court) judge in this case.

Courts of appeal deal with matters that arise in trial courts. J. Posner is on the 7th Cir. Panel that would hear any appeal of this case (albeit that it is unlikely that J. Posner would sit on the panel hearing an appeal of his own trial rulings).

The monumental change of the Order is the direct result of International Trade Commission's serious concerns regarding the procedural posture of the case. Dismissing a case where cross motions for Summary Judgment had been submitted and ruled upon - finding that sufficient factual issues remained in question, thus precluding dismissal and mandating a trial on the merits - makes the sudden dismissal and subsequent Order that relief available only post-trial would be precluded highly problematic.

Where one powerful judge can simply dismiss a case sua sponte at this point in the proceedings: the potential for other judges to adopt the practice constitutes a chilling effect on future litigants and denies the doctrine of stare decisis. Disturbing in the extreme!
post #10 of 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bought_it@AAPL View Post

No. You are incorrect. This is the trial court action.
J. Posner is a senior - status 7th Circuit (appellate court) Judge - but he is sitting by designation as the trial court (district court) judge in this case.
Courts of appeal deal with matters that arise in trial courts. J. Posner is on the 7th Cir. Panel that would hear any appeal of this case (albeit that it is unlikely that J. Posner would sit on the panel hearing an appeal of his own trial rulings).
The monumental change of the Order is the direct result of International Trade Commission's serious concerns regarding the procedural posture of the case. Dismissing a case where cross motions for Summary Judgment had been submitted and ruled upon - finding that sufficient factual issues remained in question, thus precluding dismissal and mandating a trial on the merits - makes the sudden dismissal and subsequent Order that relief available only post-trial would be precluded highly problematic.
Where one powerful judge can simply dismiss a case sua sponte at this point in the proceedings: the potential for other judges to adopt the practice constitutes a chilling effect on future litigants and denies the doctrine of stare decisis. Disturbing in the extreme!

Thank you for the clarification.
Use duckduckgo.com with Safari, not Google Search
Been using Apples since 1978 and Macs since 1984
Long on AAPL so biased. Strong advocate for separation of technology and politics on AI.
Reply
Use duckduckgo.com with Safari, not Google Search
Been using Apples since 1978 and Macs since 1984
Long on AAPL so biased. Strong advocate for separation of technology and politics on AI.
Reply
post #11 of 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bought_it@AAPL View Post

No. You are incorrect. This is the trial court action.
J. Posner is a senior - status 7th Circuit (appellate court) Judge - but he is sitting by designation as the trial court (district court) judge in this case.
Courts of appeal deal with matters that arise in trial courts. J. Posner is on the 7th Cir. Panel that would hear any appeal of this case (albeit that it is unlikely that J. Posner would sit on the panel hearing an appeal of his own trial rulings).
The monumental change of the Order is the direct result of International Trade Commission's serious concerns regarding the procedural posture of the case. Dismissing a case where cross motions for Summary Judgment had been submitted and ruled upon - finding that sufficient factual issues remained in question, thus precluding dismissal and mandating a trial on the merits - makes the sudden dismissal and subsequent Order that relief available only post-trial would be precluded highly problematic.
Where one powerful judge can simply dismiss a case sua sponte at this point in the proceedings: the potential for other judges to adopt the practice constitutes a chilling effect on future litigants and denies the doctrine of stare decisis. Disturbing in the extreme!

Terrific post.
post #12 of 13
post #13 of 13
Fixed your link for you. I'd've written this in the "edit comment" box, but there isn't one anymore…

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple given second chance at Motorola injunction