or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Appeals court upholds ITC ruling that Apple did not infringe Motorola data patent [u]
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Appeals court upholds ITC ruling that Apple did not infringe Motorola data patent [u]

post #1 of 83
Thread Starter 
The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Friday upheld an International Trade Commission decision that Apple did not infringe on a Motorola patent covering data delivery to mobile devices.

Motorola patent case


Update: An earlier version of this story referenced a different invention, U.S. Patent No. 6,246,862. That patent, covering proximity sensors in mobile devices, was not considered by the appeals court.

"Motorola failed to establish the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement," Federal Judge Jimmie V. Reyna wrote in the court's decision. "Because these conclusions of the Commission were supported by substantial evidence, we affirm."

Sitting on the panel with Judge Reyna were judges Prost and Bryson.

Schaumburg, Ill.-based Motorola first filed a complaint with the ITC in 2010, alleging that Apple's Apple's iOS push notification system violated Motorola's U.S. Patent No. 6,272,333. The ITC ruled against Motorola in that case, and the company then appealed the decision.

At the time, Motorola claimed to have engaged in "lengthy negotiations" with Apple to license the patent, along with 17 others covering foundational technologies like 3G, GPRS, and antenna design. When Apple "refused" to agree to licensing terms, Motorola filed suit.

Motorola has suffered setback after setback in its ongoing legal scuffle against Cupertino, Calif.-based Apple. The iPhone maker scored back-to-back victories in November of last year, and a case alleging that Motorola infringed Apple's multitouch patents is ongoing after another appeals court ruling reversed an earlier ITC decision to dismiss the suit.
post #2 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Motorola has suffered setback after setback in its ongoing legal scuffle...

 

Do the lawyers still get paid?

post #3 of 83
$12 Billion down the drain.
post #4 of 83

This explains why AAPL stock is dropping again today.

post #5 of 83
It's been 7 years... Time to move on, no?
post #6 of 83

Evil Google a-holes must be pissed… they spent all those BILLIONS on garbage Motorola patents and got nothing for them. Heheh

post #7 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by Timbit View Post

It's been 7 years... Time to move on, no?

According to the article,  ... "Motorola first filed a complaint with the ITC in August 2012". So how do you figure 7 years ???

See, in the record business, you can show someone your song, and they don’t copy it. In the tech business, you show somebody your idea, and they steal it. (Jimmy Iovine)
Reply
See, in the record business, you can show someone your song, and they don’t copy it. In the tech business, you show somebody your idea, and they steal it. (Jimmy Iovine)
Reply
post #8 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by newbee View Post

According to the article,  ... "Motorola first filed a complaint with the ITC in August 2012". So how do you figure 7 years ???
7 years since the iPhone was initially released. The first iPhone had this technology. I am sure that is what he is referring to.
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 83

As far as I can tell from the linked ruling, this had nothing to do with proximity sensors, and was instead about communication of available applications to receive push notifications. They still lost though.

post #10 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

T

Schaumburg, Ill.-based Motorola first filed a complaint with the ITC in August 2012, alleging that Apple's use of a proximity sensor to automatically disable the iPhone's display when held to a user's ear violated Motorola's U.S. Patent No. 6,272,333. The ITC ruled against Motorola in December of that year, and the company immediately indicated their intention to appeal.

The ITC agreed to revisit the decision in February 2013 and again found in Apple's favor. Motorola then elevated the case to the Federal Court of Appeals, which handed down Friday's ruling. ef="http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/08/07/apple-wins-appeal-reinstating-itc-case-against-googles-motorola">ruling reversed an earlier ITC decision to dismiss the suit.

I think the AI writer is confused on the timeline. The original Motorola complaint citing the "proximity sensor" patent, which predated even the Motorola Mobility spin-off, was filed back in 2010. The most recent ITC finding was due to a remand by the ITC Commission and appeal of the original finding of no infringement. The new August 2012 ITC case the author mentions was most likely the one dropped roughly a month later without explanation and did not involve that patent.
With regard to this particular ITC case in August of last year there was only a reaffirmation of Judge Pender's original finding of non-infringement. There's no active new infringement cases filed against either Microsoft or Apple since Google's purchase last May. With this latest ruling all the old lawsuits are approaching finality with no new lawsuits from either MM or Google in the pipeline. Finally. 1hmm.gif
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #11 of 83

Sorry Google...you wasted $12 billions on a dying cat. Where can you recoup the money? Next, you will have to pay Oracle about Java blatant copy too...

post #12 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by bighype View Post

Evil Google a-holes must be pissed… they spent all those BILLIONS on garbage Motorola patents and got nothing for them. Heheh

FWIW there's no evidence that Google bought MM with the intent of ever suing any of it's competitors using their patents. Apparently the feeling of a few folks is that if they aren't suing then all those patents must be worthless? Strange reasoning. Even Apple who has never passed a courtroom they didn't like has sued on only a very tiny number of the thousands they control. Does that make all the others worthless?
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #13 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by bighype View Post
 

Evil Google a-holes must be pissed… they spent all those BILLIONS on garbage Motorola patents and got nothing for them. Heheh

I think Google looks at it as "free" money! 

 

I don't think they even think they "earned" the billions spent on Motorola...

 

Best.

post #14 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by fallenjt View Post

Sorry Google...you wasted $12 billions on a dying cat. Where can you recoup the money? Next, you will have to pay Oracle about Java blatant copy too...

Nonsense. All Google Motorola has to do is enter those "LOL@APPLE" photoshops into evidence and voila! Instant court win. Works in the forums, so it should hold up in court. /s

"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 #15 of 83

Keep tightening that noose around Google's neck!!  They certainly deserve everything that happens to them.

post #16 of 83

Another mushroom cloud in SJ's thermonuclear war.

"You can't fall off the floor"   From 128k Mac to 8GB MBP

Reply

"You can't fall off the floor"   From 128k Mac to 8GB MBP

Reply
post #17 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post
 
Even Apple who has never passed a courtroom they didn't like ...

Huh?

post #18 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by newbee View Post

According to the article,  ... "Motorola first filed a complaint with the ITC in August 2012". So how do you figure 7 years ???

Yes, as NoahJ said, I was referring to the fact that this has been incorporated into the iPhone since it's launch.
post #19 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by tdknox View Post
 

This explains why AAPL stock is dropping again today.

 

Quite.

 

Gartner says that PC sales are dropping even faster than feared, while Mac sales are up strongly.

 

Therefore, MSFT and INTC are up, while AAPL is down by $5, again.

 

Is this some kind of "sell-on-news", or market contrarianism, or inside info re Apple we're not seeing?

 

Or pure market stupidity?

post #20 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


FWIW there's no evidence that Google bought MM with the intent of ever suing any of it's competitors using their patents. 

 

Yeh. They spent $12B just to go into competition with Android partners, using that powerhouse hardware juggernaut, Motorola.

post #21 of 83

Bloomberg news said "Apple wins appeal ..." by Susan Decker.

post #22 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by pdq2 View Post
 

 

Quite.

 

Gartner says that PC sales are dropping even faster than feared, while Mac sales are up strongly.

 

Therefore, MSFT and INTC are up, while AAPL is down by $5, again.

 

Is this some kind of "sell-on-news", or market contrarianism, or inside info re Apple we're not seeing?

 

Or pure market stupidity?

 

Wolves herding sheep.

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #23 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

FWIW there's no evidence that Google bought MM with the intent of ever suing any of it's competitors using their patents. Apparently the feeling of a few folks is that if they aren't suing then all those patents must be worthless? Strange reasoning. Even Apple who has never passed a courtroom they didn't like has sued on only a very tiny number of the thousands they control. Does that make all the others worthless?

FWIW, there's no evidence Capt. Edward Smith took command of the HMS Titanic with the intent of ever smashing it into an iceberg.

"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 #24 of 83
Originally Posted by Timbit View Post
It's been 7 years... Time to move on, no?

 

Well, no. Motorola has all the right in the world to claim theft of intellectual property as long as their rights to do so haven’t expired, just like Apple does.

 

They just happen to be morons and wrong, is all.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #25 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

FWIW there's no evidence that Google bought MM with the intent of ever suing any of it's competitors using their patents. Apparently the feeling of a few folks is that if they aren't suing then all those patents must be worthless? Strange reasoning. Even Apple who has never passed a courtroom they didn't like has sued on only a very tiny number of the thousands they control. Does that make all the others worthless?

Google bought Moto as an act of kindness.
post #26 of 83
Personally I see it as a defensive measure, both from the standpoint of discouraging new patent suits overall and specifically keeping Motorola from starting a fresh round of lawsuits against competitors including other Android licensees. IMHO the MM patents may even have played a part in Apple's odd and unexplained 10 year cross-patent agreement with HTC last December. Google has no past history of suing over IP claims and haven't ever given any indication of plans to change that despite the contrary claims from some here.
Edited by Gatorguy - 1/10/14 at 11:59am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #27 of 83

Definitely looks like the Motorola Lawyers screwed up on this one, it looks like their patent applications were not broad enough and Apple implementation was not the same as Motorola's. Something else to consider is Apple may have looked up all these patents and just designed around them which can be done if you understand the patent. The more specific a patent is sometime the easier it is to design around them.

post #28 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Personally I see it as a defensive measure, both from the standpoint of discouraging new patent suits overall and specifically keeping Motorola from starting a fresh round of lawsuits against competitors including other Android licensees. IMHO the MM patents may even have played a part in Apple's odd and unexplained 10 year cross-patent agreement with HTC last December. Google has no past history of suing over IP claims and haven't ever given any indication of plans to change that despite the contrary claims from some here.

HTC chose to settle with Apple on mutually agreeable terms. That's it !

Google and Motorola play no part in that negotiation, other than the known lawsuits.

Google and Motorola certainly have a record of suing Apple over IP claims. The failed SEP one and this one are examples. There may be more in the future.
post #29 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro64 View Post

Definitely looks like the Motorola Lawyers screwed up on this one, it looks like their patent applications were not broad enough and Apple implementation was not the same as Motorola's. Something else to consider is Apple may have looked up all these patents and just designed around them which can be done if you understand the patent. The more specific a patent is sometime the easier it is to design around them.

MM was denied not because of the patent claims but because of a technical failure regarding an "injunction". For the ITC to issue an exclusion order (injunction), the only infringement cure they can offer by law, the complainant must prove a "domestic industry" for the claimed property. In other words they have to prove they produce a product that makes use of the claimed IP or at the minimum show revenue from licensing of that patent.. That second part is quite new by the way, just established by an Appeals Court ruling in the last year involving Nokia and an NPE. In this case Motorola cited the Droid 2 as practicing the patents claims. The Appeals Court ruled that the Droid 2 did not use the asserted patent claims in that product and therefor MM failed the 337 "domestic industry" requirement.

Simply going to the ITC and establishing that someone is using your patent without permission is insufficient without showing that it's harming your own commercial efforts. Motorola Mobility was saved by the same "domestic industry" reasoning last year when Microsoft went after an ITC exclusion order on Motorola devices.
http://www.pharmapatentsblog.com/2013/10/10/motorola-escapes-microsoft-itc-domestic-industry-requirement/
Edited by Gatorguy - 1/10/14 at 1:25pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #30 of 83

Yea, combine this news with the great Mac sales.... the stock never had a chance...

post #31 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post
 

 

Wolves herding sheep.

And India's election regulator drops plan to partner Google. Of course, GOOG is up on that news.

post #32 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by Plagen View Post

And India's election regulator drops plan to partner Google. Of course, GOOG is up on that news.

Fallout from the NSA's spy campaign reveal will be handicapping a lot of US companies in overseas business deals. Cisco and Google won't be the only ones. I suspect there may be quite of lot of economic harm due to what the NSA has been doing.

If GOOG stock is really up because of any specific news it might be this:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-01-10/google-x-staff-meet-with-fda-pointing-toward-new-device.html

IMO there's no rhyme or reason for most of the up and down swings which is why I tend to avoid the stock market.
Edited by Gatorguy - 1/10/14 at 1:42pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #33 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by patsu View Post

HTC chose to settle with Apple on mutually agreeable terms. That's it !

Google and Motorola play no part in that negotiation, other than the known lawsuits.

Google and Motorola certainly have a record of suing Apple over IP claims. The failed SEP one and this one are examples. There may be more in the future.

Google IP infringement suits against Apple? Zero
Apple infringement suits against Google? Zero
New active IP infringement lawsuits filed by Motorola Mobility against Apple since the Google takeover? Zero
New infringement suits filed by Apple against MM since Google bought them? Zero
Possible influence of Motorola IP in the HTC/Apple all-inclusive license agreement? Do a little research looking at a couple of very odd and unexplained legal happenings involving Apple and MM in the three months prior to the cross licensing agreement.
Edited by Gatorguy - 1/10/14 at 2:08pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #34 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

FWIW there's no evidence that Google bought MM with the intent of ever suing any of it's competitors using their patents. Apparently the feeling of a few folks is that if they aren't suing then all those patents must be worthless? Strange reasoning. Even Apple who has never passed a courtroom they didn't like has sued on only a very tiny number of the thousands they control. Does that make all the others worthless?

Do you write this stuff yourself or get emails sent to you with the stuff Google want you to post?
Enjoying the new Mac Pro ... it's smokin'
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini.
Reply
Enjoying the new Mac Pro ... it's smokin'
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini.
Reply
post #35 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

Do you write this stuff yourself or get emails sent to you with the stuff Google want you to post?
1biggrin.gif
Guess if you can't argue then snipe. I'm used to it so no biggie.
Edited by Gatorguy - 1/10/14 at 2:24pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #36 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Google IP infringement suits against Apple? Zero
Apple infringement suits against Google? Zero
New active IP infringement lawsuits filed by Motorola Mobility against Apple since the Google takeover? Zero
New infringement suits filed by Apple against MM since Google bought them? Zero
Possible influence of Motorola IP in the HTC/Apple all-inclusive license agreement? Do a little research looking at a couple of very odd and unexplained legal happenings involving Apple and MM in the three months prior to the cross licensing agreement.

Zero ? ^_^

They lost. Losses also count. If Google are against IP suits, they would have pulled the cases immediately like how Samsung did it with their SEP cases in EU.

As for HTC suit, it's useless to tell me odd things happen. HTC settled. They said it works better for them to do so.
post #37 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Personally I see it as a defensive measure, both from the standpoint of discouraging new patent suits overall and specifically keeping Motorola from starting a fresh round of lawsuits against competitors including other Android licensees. IMHO the MM patents may even have played a part in Apple's odd and unexplained 10 year cross-patent agreement with HTC last December. Google has no past history of suing over IP claims and haven't ever given any indication of plans to change that despite the contrary claims from some here.

 

I wonder what Google would do if I set up a website in which I accepted searches from the general public, queried google.com with those searches, stripped out the ads and blocked Google Analytics, and served up the results to my "customers."  Perhaps Google has no history of suing over IP claims because no other company has been as brazenly cavalier about competitors' IP as Google has been.  

post #38 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

1biggrin.gif
Guess if you can't argue then snipe. I'm used to it so no biggie.

How can you interpret a genuine question as a snipe? If you have zero connection with Google just say so. I don't see a need to argue with constant anti Apple comments on an Apple blog. I come here for information and shared enthusiasm and find the trolls a pain in the ass. There are plenty of pro Android web sites you could spend time on and be amongst friends, so i don't get the point of your being here, erudite as you are, unless with a motive.
Enjoying the new Mac Pro ... it's smokin'
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini.
Reply
Enjoying the new Mac Pro ... it's smokin'
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini.
Reply
post #39 of 83
You must have missed the past half dozen times I've answered similar queries here. Nope, no connection to Google at all. Not even a share of stock. Now a question for you. What anti-Apple comments from me can you point to?

On the contrary I have a lot of respect for and interest in Apple. Perhaps you're mistaking my not joining in on "fun with FUD" as dissing Apple's success. Unlike a few I don't think its necessary to make stuff up in the mistaken belief it makes Apple look better. Those that do so are selling them short IMO.
Edited by Gatorguy - 1/10/14 at 5:48pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #40 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post


How can you interpret a genuine question as a snipe? If you have zero connection with Google just say so. I don't see a need to argue with constant anti Apple comments on an Apple blog. I come here for information and shared enthusiasm and find the trolls a pain in the ass. There are plenty of pro Android web sites you could spend time on and be amongst friends, so i don't get the point of your being here, erudite as you are, unless with a motive.


May be you can ask him if he uses any Apple products. 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
  • Appeals court upholds ITC ruling that Apple did not infringe Motorola data patent [u]
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Appeals court upholds ITC ruling that Apple did not infringe Motorola data patent [u]