or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple wins appeal reinstating ITC case against Google's Motorola
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple wins appeal reinstating ITC case against Google's Motorola

post #1 of 52
Thread Starter 
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled in favor of Apple on Wednesday, reinstating the company's complaint against Google-owned Motorola Mobility.

US Appeals Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. | Source: U.S. Courts


The ruling overturns a decision from the U.S. International Trade Commission from March 2012, when the commission dismissed Apple's complaint against Motorola. Apple appealed that ruling, and with Wednesday's decision, the case will proceed, as reported by Florian Mueller of FOSS Patents.

Apple's original case involved three patents. The appeals court reprimanded the ITC, and reversed its decision on two of the original patents in question:

"Today's remand decision gives Apple another opportunity to win a U.S. import ban against the Google subsidiary's Android-based devices, which would have the Android ecosystem at large concerned," Mueller said.

The appeal granted in Apple's favor does, however, officially remove one of the original three patents from the case: U.S. Patent No. 5,379,430, entitled "Object-oriented system locator system." Apple did not pursue its claims on this patent in the appeal.

Apple first filed the ITC complaint in October 2010 in response to a Motorola patent attack, alleging that the telecom giant's Droid, Droid 2, Droid X and other smartphones infringed on existing multitouch patents. The subsequent investigation concluded in January when an ALJ found that Motorola were not in violation of the asserted Apple patents.
post #2 of 52
Que Obama comments.
post #3 of 52
Obama better veto it, now that he has set the precedent.
post #4 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by cnocbui View Post

Obama better veto it, now that he has set the precedent.

 

You just don't get it and it makes you look really bad and uneducated.

post #5 of 52
All this does at this point is give Apple another chance to argue that Motorola, which now becomes Motorola Mobility, does infringe on one or both patents. One or both could still be found invalid or not infringed by the ITC. There's no import ban as it stands.

... and yes as unlikely as it might be even an import ban on non-SEP patents can be overruled by the President.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #6 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by hydr View Post

Que Obama comments.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cnocbui View Post

Obama better veto it, now that he has set the precedent.

Obama Vetoed the last ruling due to the abuse of FRAND patents and wanted to ensure that they could not be used to unfairly grant an advantage against competitors. None of the patents in this case are FRAND and thus are fair game for any and all penalties if the other company refuses to follow the law. This is not the same situation, except that they both involve patents and lawsuits... 1hmm.gif
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #7 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post


Obama Vetoed the last ruling due to the abuse of FRAND patents\

...um No. Ignore Apple's statement about it as it really isn't what Mr. Fromer said nor what happened.

the EssentialPatentBlog has a pretty darn good explanation.
http://essentialpatentblog.com/2013/08/what-does-the-u-s-trade-representatives-disapproval-of-the-samsung-apple-exclusion-order-mean-for-sep-cases-at-the-itc/
Edited by Gatorguy - 8/7/13 at 10:30am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #8 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

All this does at this point is give Apple another chance to argue that Motorola, which now becomes Motorola Mobility, does infringe on one or both patents. One or both could still be found invalid or not infringed by the ITC. There's no import ban as it stands.

... and yes as unlikely as it might be even an import ban on non-SEP patents can be overruled by the President.
There is no import ban and Obama could overrule any ban. However in this case, if he did after Apple won, it would undermine any future ability to enforce any patents by anyone. His actions before were pushing the limits of what is right to begin with, but there is enough of a difference that I will not say he did the wrong thing. We'll see how it goes as this finishes winding it way through the legal system...
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #9 of 52
Regarding "the U.S. Patent No. 5,379,430, entitled "Object-oriented system locator system." Apple did not pursue its claims on this patent in the appeal,"

Mueller pointed out this patent is about to expire.
post #10 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

All this does at this point is give Apple another chance to argue that Motorola, which now becomes Motorola Mobility, does infringe on one or both patents. One or both could still be found invalid or not infringed by the ITC. There's no import ban as it stands.

... and yes as unlikely as it might be even an import ban on non-SEP patents can be overruled by the President.

 

 

You are correct on all accounts. However, the President DID NOT over rule the ITC on the Samsung matter. The President's Trade Representative overruled the ITC based on a previous policy the President implemented concerning FRAND patents. So, it is highly unlikely the President will overrule the ITC on a non-FRAND patent.

 

It is worth noting that Motorola's new phone is assembled in the US. This means only parts infringing on Apple's patents can be enjoined by the ITC. The actual phone itself cannot.  Apple would have to go the slower federal court route. 

post #11 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

...um No. Ignore Apple's statement about it as it really isn't what Mr. Fromer said.

the EssentialPatentBlog has a pretty darn good explanation.
http://essentialpatentblog.com/2013/08/what-does-the-u-s-trade-representatives-disapproval-of-the-samsung-apple-exclusion-order-mean-for-sep-cases-at-the-itc/
Umm, are you straining gnats here? The decision was made in order to ensure that FRAND or SEP was not used unfairly. I guess the issue you take is me making a leap in the logic saying that they found that there was FRAND abuse, and the decision did not specifically say that. If so, then I will agree they, did not make a ruling, however the intent was as I described. They were trying to make it much harder in the case of SEP and FRAND patents to gain a market advantage and attempted to raise the bar much higher for getting an import ban or other such enforcementf. It will be interesting to see where this goes whatever the case.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #12 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post


There is no import ban and Obama could overrule any ban. However in this case, if he did after Apple won, it would undermine any future ability to enforce any patents by anyone. His actions before were pushing the limits of what is right to begin with, but there is enough of a difference that I will not say he did the wrong thing. We'll see how it goes as this finishes winding it way through the legal system...

 

 

There is a very clear difference between enjoining products based on an infringed FRAND patent and non-FRAND patents. A company who makes its patents available to a standards body under FRAND terms must license the patent to anybody who wants to make use of the patent and must do so under fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory terms. All the party can possibly be owed is money. A federal court is more than capable of  determining if money is owed and how much.

 

Allowing the ITC to issue injunctions for FRAND patents is just bad policy because it allows the holders of FRAND patents to try and get an injunction to force a party to pay more than a fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory rate. That is exactly what Samsung tried to do. Moreover, it failed to provide any evidence that the rate it offered Apple was in accordance with what it charged other companies if anything. Further, Samsung failed to address Apple's argument that Apple has a license based on the fee Infineon paid Samsung to use Samsung's patents. In the Samsung case where it lost to Apple for infringing on its IP, the Judge found portions of this same patents not infringed by Apple, and the Jury found Apple had a license by virtue of paying for the Infineon chip, which covered the license. If Samsung would have been able to get an ITC injunction on the patents involved in that case, Apple would have been forced to either remove those products from the market or pay an exorbiant fee to Samsung. Yet, the Court ultimately found, Samsung is owed no money for the at issue FRAND patents. 

 

If the President did not act, all hell would have broke out, and consumers would be the ones who paid in terms of less choice, and higher priced products. The President's actions were clearly the correct one, and I do not see how it can be viewed as pushing the limits.

 

Moreover, with a FRAND patent you can not design around the patent as it is part of the standard, with non-FRAND patents you generally can. 

post #13 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post


Umm, are you straining gnats here? The decision was made in order to ensure that FRAND or SEP was not used unfairly. I guess the issue you take is me making a leap in the logic saying that they found that there was FRAND abuse, and the decision did not specifically say that. If so, then I will agree they, did not make a ruling, however the intent was as I described. They were trying to make it much harder in the case of SEP and FRAND patents to gain a market advantage and attempted to raise the bar much higher for getting an import ban or other such enforcementf. It will be interesting to see where this goes whatever the case.

 

 

The dissenting Judge in the ITC case, stated Samsung made a licensing offer to Apple verbally. The offer was tied to requiring Apple to license its non-Frand patents to Samsung. That is a violation of the contract Samsung entered when making its patents part of the standard. As such, I would say that is abusive. Further, it shows Samsung was not serious about working out a license with Apple. Further, the judge also pointed out that at no point did Samsung provide any information to Apple (or the ITC) to show its offer was objectively reasonable (e.g. copies of other licensing agreements Samsung entered into). 


Edited by TBell - 8/7/13 at 10:50am
post #14 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post


The dissenting Judge in the ITC case, stated Samsung made on licensing offer to Apple verbally. The offer was tied to requiring Apple to license its non-Frand patents to Samsung. That is a violation of the contract Samsung entered when making its patents part of the standard. As such, I would say that is abusive. Further, it shows Samsung was not serious about working out a license with Apple. Further, the judge also pointed out that at no point did Samsung provide any information to Apple (or the ITC) to show its offer was objectively reasonable (e.g. copies of other licensing agreements Samsung entered into). 

Yet oddly enough Apple argued strongly that the Samsung patent wasn't FRAND to begin with. Even then the ITC considered both scenarios, that the patent was SEP and that it was not. In both instances they still found Apple guilty of reverse hold up. Some here call that "FRAND abuse" or misusing the process.
Edited by Gatorguy - 8/7/13 at 11:03am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #15 of 52
I don't know about anyone else, but the article that I read was about the appeals court overturning an ITC decision. Given that, I am a little confused by the calls for a presidential veto. How can the president veto a decision that was already overturned by the courts?
post #16 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Yet oddly enough Apple argued strongly that the Samsung patent wasn't FRAND to begin with. Even then the ITC considered both scenarios, that the patent was SEP and that it was not. In both instances they still found Apple guilty of reverse hold up. Some here call that "FRAND abuse" or misusing the process.

That it wasn't valid. Hogwash. Sammy made an offer for Apple's non-SEP and was denied. Sammy then ran home and cried.
post #17 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post

 

 

The dissenting Judge in the ITC case, stated Samsung made a licensing offer to Apple verbally. The offer was tied to requiring Apple to license its non-Frand patents to Samsung. That is a violation of the contract Samsung entered when making its patents part of the standard. As such, I would say that is abusive. Further, it shows Samsung was not serious about working out a license with Apple. Further, the judge also pointed out that at no point did Samsung provide any information to Apple (or the ITC) to show its offer was objectively reasonable (e.g. copies of other licensing agreements Samsung entered into). 

 

Wait, KD assured us that Samsung made no such offer to tie patents together in order to make a deal. After all, he read all 1,500 pages on the matter so he should know.

 

Who should I believe? The shill who claims to have read "everything there is to know" about the case, or the comments from an actual judge on the panel that made the decision. Gee, that's a tough one.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


Yet oddly enough Apple argued strongly that the Samsung patent wasn't FRAND to begin with. Even then the ITC considered both scenarios, that the patent was SEP and that it was not. In both instances they still found Apple guilty of reverse hold up. Some here call that "FRAND abuse" or misusing the process.

 

Some would call it reverse hold up. Unfortunately for you, most don't. Like MS, Cisco, Intel, HP, IBM, the FTC, several bipartisan senators...the list goes on. But you can go ahead and cling to the minority that agree with you and pretend they speak for everyone.

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply
post #18 of 52
Here's an obvious question: is the ITC even needed anymore? Or it's merely for patronage appointments for politically-connected people now?
post #19 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

Wait, KD assured us that Samsung made no such offer to tie patents together in order to make a deal. After all, he read all 1,500 pages on the matter so he should know.

Who should I believe? The shill who claims to have read "everything there is to know" about the case, or the comments from an actual judge on the panel that made the decision. Gee, that's a tough one.



Some would call it reverse hold up. Unfortunately for you, most don't. Like MS, Cisco, Intel, HP, IBM, the FTC, several bipartisan senators...the list goes on. But you can go ahead and cling to the minority that agree with you and pretend they speak for everyone.

I'm not aware of a poll that showed either position to be in the minority much as you'll like to claim that "everyone is on Apple's side". Do a couple of web searches. It might surprise you.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #20 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


I'm not aware of a poll that showed either position to be in the minority much as you'll like to claim that "everyone is on Apple's side". Do a couple of web searches. It might surprise you.

Neat

iMac 2007, Macbook pro 2008, Mac Mini 2011
Reply
iMac 2007, Macbook pro 2008, Mac Mini 2011
Reply
post #21 of 52
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Apple first filed the ITC complaint in October 2010 in response to a Motorola patent attack ...

 

Google lit $12.5 billion on fire and got Motorola Mobility as a reward.

With 17,000 obsolete and FRAND-encumbered patents and an implicit threat to all of Google's Android hardware partners.

 

And the cash is still burning: MM lost $218 million for Google last quarter (4 times the previous year's quarter.)

Net effect against Apple: zero.

Sent from my iPhone Simulator

Reply

Sent from my iPhone Simulator

Reply
post #22 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by hydr View Post

Que Obama comments.

 

Que Obama debe recibir nuestro más sincero agradecimiento.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #23 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by iaeen View Post

I don't know about anyone else, but the article that I read was about the appeals court overturning an ITC decision. Given that, I am a little confused by the calls for a presidential veto. How can the president veto a decision that was already overturned by the courts?

Exactly!

 

The headline should read, "ITC smacked down again ... first by the President and now by the U.S. Court of Appeals".

 

ITC is a federal agency not an Article III court. The POTUS is required to review (not may review but is statutorily mandated to review) exclusion orders and cease and desist orders issued by ITC.  The President, along with his trade representative and other advisers, conducted that review and made his decision.  I think it was the correct decision.  Others may not, but the point is it was the POTUS's decision to make.  Like Obama or not, he is a Harvard educated lawyer who taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago.  Both of those schools are among the elite of U.S. law schools ... so he gets it.  He understands the legal, political, and economic issues better than just about anyone.

 

Likewise, decisions of the ITC are reviewable by federal Article III courts.  Happens all the time when an agency such as the EPA issues a regulation and someone sues claiming the agency abused their discretion or overstepped their bounds.  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is one level below the U.S. Supreme Court so unless SCOTUS overrules the U.S. Court of Appeals their decision will stand.  The POTUS cannot overrule an Article III court like he can a federal agency.  It's called separation of powers.

 

Ok, civics lesson over.

post #24 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harmon View Post

Exactly!

 Like Obama or not, he is a Harvard educated lawyer who taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago.  Both of those schools are among the elite of U.S. law schools ... so he gets it.  He understands the legal, political, and economic issues better than just about anyone.

NSA.
post #25 of 52
edit
Edited by Gatorguy - 8/14/13 at 4:59am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #26 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

All this does at this point is give Apple another chance to argue that Motorola, which now becomes Motorola Mobility, does infringe on one or both patents. One or both could still be found invalid or not infringed by the ITC. There's no import ban as it stands.

... and yes as unlikely as it might be even an import ban on non-SEP patents can be overruled by the President.

No, the important part is that all you Google shills argue that Apple doesn't have any case because ITC said there was no case. The Court of Appeals disagreed and said that there is sufficient evidence that the ITC has to hear it.

IOW, you just lost one of your very few 'wins' against Apple.
"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 #27 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

No, the important part is that all you Google shills argue that Apple doesn't have any case because ITC said there was no case. The Court of Appeals disagreed and said that there is sufficient evidence that the ITC has to hear it.

IOW, you just lost one of your very few 'wins' against Apple.

You're obviously not referring to me for any one of several reasons, including anything you just mentioned.lol.gif
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #28 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harmon View Post

 Like Obama or not, he is a Harvard educated lawyer who taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago.  Both of those schools are among the elite of U.S. law schools ... so he gets it.  He understands the legal, political, and economic issues better than just about anyone.

 

 

Sequester.

Obamacare.

post #29 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


Yet oddly enough Apple argued strongly that the Samsung patent wasn't FRAND to begin with. 

 

Umm, that's not what Apple or the ITC argued... They said the IP was fairly insignificant and most likely never even touched by Apple's code, but it is in fact part of the standard and included in the baseband chip, which means it would still fall under FRAND terms. However, as Apple rightly argued, the licensing fees for that IP would have been covered by the manufacturer of the part, not the customers of said manufacturer.

Disclaimer: The things I say are merely my own personal opinion and may or may not be based on facts. At certain points in any discussion, sarcasm may ensue.
Reply
Disclaimer: The things I say are merely my own personal opinion and may or may not be based on facts. At certain points in any discussion, sarcasm may ensue.
Reply
post #30 of 52
post #31 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


I'm absolutely convinced that one day you'll have more than a one-liner to contribute and come up with some really useful piece of knowledge that adds to AI. 1wink.gif

Take it easy there Sally with the winking. 

iMac 2007, Macbook pro 2008, Mac Mini 2011
Reply
iMac 2007, Macbook pro 2008, Mac Mini 2011
Reply
post #32 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

... and yes as unlikely as it might be even an import ban on non-SEP patents can be overruled by the President.

 

Obviously, as all ITC decisions are subject to Presidential review.

 

However, the only reason a veto would take place in this instance is if the President feels that it would have a negative impact on consumers, etc. Which is unlikely. Unless the President wants to remove the only teeth the ITC has.

post #33 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post


NSA.

 

Just because the President understands the issues doesn't mean he will ethically follow them; all the OP said was that the President is not ignorant.

 

People do stuff they know is wrong all the time.

post #34 of 52

I don't mind the spying on terrorists. I do mind the spying on average joe/Jane who are law abiding citizens.

Besides, I think O campaigned against this when he was running against McCain.
post #35 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjtomlin View Post

Umm, that's not what Apple or the ITC argued... They said the IP was fairly insignificant and most likely never even touched by Apple's code, but it is in fact part of the standard and included in the baseband chip, which means it would still fall under FRAND terms. However, as Apple rightly argued, the licensing fees for that IP would have been covered by the manufacturer of the part, not the customers of said manufacturer.

"Samsung has asserted to ETSI that the '348 and '644 patents may be considered essential
to the UMTS standard, but Apple argued to the ALJ that the '348 and '644 patents are not
essential.
See Apple Resp. to San1Slmg's Pet. for Review, 4 (Oct. 9, 20 12)"

Page 50 in the ITC opinion finding in Samsung's favor.

If you really want to understand the history of this particular SEP negotiation and how it landed at the ITC start with page 55. It should help clear up some of the misinformation you've read here at AI from posters that hadn't bothered to look before claiming "FACTS" that may be "FICTION".
http://essentialpatentblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/337-TA-794-Commission-Opinion-Public-Version.pdf
Edited by Gatorguy - 8/7/13 at 1:06pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #36 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by punkndrublic View Post

Take it easy there Sally with the winking. 

...aaand yet another one-liner.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #37 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

I'm not aware of a poll that showed either position to be in the minority much as you'll like to claim that "everyone is on Apple's side". Do a couple of web searches. It might surprise you.
Who said anything about a poll? How about all the letters of support and amicus curiae that supported Apples position? I'm sure you know all about them - you just choose to ignore them.

The only companies/entities that support Google:Motorola are a bunch of has-beens or groups Google has a stake in. I don't know of anyone credible that supports Google. Perhaps you could list a few?

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply
post #38 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

Who said anything about a poll? How about all the letters of support and amicus curiae that supported Apples position? I'm sure you know all about them - you just choose to ignore them.

The only companies/entities that support Google:Motorola are a bunch of has-beens or groups Google has a stake in. I don't know of anyone credible that supports Google. Perhaps you could list a few?

You seem to like Nokia, They agree with Moto and not Apple. Qualcomm is another. and Blackberry. Companies like Verizon didn't support Apple so much as they were against injunctions altogether for misc. infringed IP.

Yet others that were reported to be "supporting Apple" like Altera, Cisco, CME Group, Garmin, Hewlett-Packard, Logitech, Nest Labs, NETGEAR, Newegg, Rackspace Hosting, Safeway, SAS Institute, Symantec, Wal-Mart etc actually had a broader agenda in advocating for reasonable patent damages as a whole and not just FRAND-pledged. Strictly speaking they aren't really in "Apple's corner". In some other cases they'd actually be against Apple's position on appropriate damages for infringement.

I realize that deep in your heart you want this to be a pure black and white issue with Google in a black hat and Apple in white so everyone knows who the good guys are all the time and in every instance. Well this ain't a Western and the hat colors might change from episode to episode. If you don't pay attention you don't catch on.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #39 of 52
The President's direct authority to veto an ITC decision is written into the ITC authorizing document. The President has that authority and used it.

However, regarding US Patent law, the President, as the sole authority for executing the law, including patent decisions by the USPTO, could decide differently from the USPTO (since they have only delegated authority). He is unlikely to do that except through the legislative process and policy and legal arguments before the courts.
post #40 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

No, the important part is that all you Google shills argue that Apple doesn't have any case because ITC said there was no case. The Court of Appeals disagreed and said that there is sufficient evidence that the ITC has to hear it.

IOW, you just lost one of your very few 'wins' against Apple.

You're obviously not referring to me for any one of several reasons, including anything you just mentioned.lol.gif

Please stop being so pathetically tiresome. Give us a break. I ask in all sincerity. Please.

No one except a couple of ignorant trolls take you seriously on this forum anymore.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple wins appeal reinstating ITC case against Google's Motorola