Apple denied ownership claims to two of ten patents in Kodak suit

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Allan Gropper on Thursday ruled Apple does not own two of eight disputed Kodak patents the once-dominant photography company plans to sell at auction this month.

In his ruling, Judge Gropper said Apple took too long<?a> to assert its ownership claims in a suit Kodak brought against the Cupertino company for allegedly trying to disrupt a patent sell off scheduled for next week, reports Bloomberg.

Kodak was approved in July to sell over 1,000 patents under the terms of bankruptcy protection agreements but Apple claimed ownership of some of the imaging technology invented when the two companies partnered to create the QuickTake digital camera. The contested patents come from Kodak's so-called "digital-capture" portfolio.

Kodak


Thursday's decision is seen as a partial victory for Kodak as the company would be forced to delay the much-needed patent sale.

?If Apple?s claims proceed despite their unreasonably delayed commencement, Kodak might have to go back to the drawing board for ways to fund its case,? Judge Gropper wrote in Thursday's ruling.

The judge denied Kodak's motions for summary judgments on the remaining eight claims, but left the door open for a follow-up request if the company comes up with a "more complete record."

Interestingly, Apple reportedly joined forces with Microsoft in bidding for the photogrpahy pioneer's patent portfolio and is expected to go up against a group of huge corporations led by Google, Samsung, HTC and LG.

Most recently Apple lost a bid to move the court proceedings out of bankruptcy court and into a New York district court, a transfer that would have hindered Kodak's upcoming patent auction.

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 17
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    If Apple?s claims proceed despite their unreasonably delayed commencement, Kodak might have to go back to the drawing board for ways to fund its case,? Judge Gropper wrote in Thursday's ruling..


    This is exactly why a bankruptcy judge should not be ruling on ownership of these patents. The judge just indicated that he decided on the basis of Kodak's need for money rather than the merits of the case. This will be appealed.
  • Reply 2 of 17
    charlitunacharlituna Posts: 7,205member
    jragosta wrote: »
    This is exactly why a bankruptcy judge should not be ruling on ownership of these patents. The judge just indicated that he decided on the basis of Kodak's need for money rather than the merits of the case. This will be appealed.

    Yep and Apple will probably get it reheard, they have been arguing this for ages after Kodak sued them for infringement.
  • Reply 3 of 17
    desuserigndesuserign Posts: 1,316member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post





    This is exactly why a bankruptcy judge should not be ruling on ownership of these patents. The judge just indicated that he decided on the basis of Kodak's need for money rather than the merits of the case. This will be appealed.


    I'd agree. It seems simple.


    Co-ownership is co-ownership.I was surprised this even ended up in court.

  • Reply 4 of 17
    vadaniavadania Posts: 425member
    Two of eight? O.k. I'll cut my losses.

    So Apple got ownership of eight out of ten of those patents?

    I'm being facetious. I don't have all of the facts, but the headline is worse than the earlier one about maps...
  • Reply 5 of 17


    It seems that only 10 patents were in dispute, but I'm sure there were hundreds. This story doesn't make much sense... or were only 8 of10 patents clearly Apple's property?

  • Reply 6 of 17
    vadaniavadania Posts: 425member
    Tallest? Cool pic for this?
  • Reply 7 of 17
    stoobsstoobs Posts: 40member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Vadania View Post



    Tallest? Cool pic for this?




    image

  • Reply 8 of 17
    umrk_labumrk_lab Posts: 550member
    What is the point in mentioning that Google belongs to "huge corporations" category ?
  • Reply 9 of 17
    vadaniavadania Posts: 425member
    stoobs wrote: »
    1000

    That's awesome! I went back and read the story... Then scrolled down. Then went back... Then scrolled down.

    It just FITS! Kudos!
  • Reply 10 of 17
    vadaniavadania Posts: 425member
    Spoiler:
    umrk_lab wrote: »
    What is the point in mentioning that Google belongs to "huge corporations" category ?

    Shhhhh.... Actually, if you had read this earlier you would have known they weren't so "huge" yesterday and could have purchased stock then...

    Aren't there better things to complain about?
  • Reply 11 of 17
    vadaniavadania Posts: 425member
    What's with the "Warning Spoiler" above my posts Tallest? I'm genuinely curious?
  • Reply 12 of 17
    gtrgtr Posts: 3,231member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post



    In his ruling, Judge Gropper said Apple took too longto assert its ownership claims


     


    Judge Grasshopper's message to Apple:


     


    "Become more aggressive in your litigation."


     


    No problems!

  • Reply 13 of 17
    bizzlebizzle Posts: 66member


    I'm not familiar with bankruptcy law but I suspect that events hindering the process so the distressed company is rendered incapable of quickly restructuring or dissolving and settling its debts are frowned upon and appropriately handled by a bankruptcy judge.


     


    If a company can tie another company up in various legal venues until it goes out of business then it leaves all those patents' fates up in the air. They also would have less ability to fight the patent battles, if they even could at all. That's at least one motivating factor of why Apple wants to slow everything down as much as possible. It's one tactic, agree with it as a good one or not, nonetheless the bankruptcy judge said no we're going to keep the bankruptcy proceedings rolling along.


     


    The judge doesn't have a direct role to play in protecting one's assets from one's creditors but does need to ensure the playing field is as even as possible so it's within a judge's purview to do what can be done to ensure one litigant isn't unduly burdened in the case.

  • Reply 14 of 17
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    bizzle wrote: »
    I'm not familiar with bankruptcy law but I suspect that events hindering the process so the distressed company is rendered incapable of quickly restructuring or dissolving and settling its debts are frowned upon and appropriately handled by a bankruptcy judge.

    If a company can tie another company up in various legal venues until it goes out of business then it leaves all those patents' fates up in the air. They also would have less ability to fight the patent battles, if they even could at all. That's at least one motivating factor of why Apple wants to slow everything down as much as possible. It's one tactic, agree with it as a good one or not, nonetheless the bankruptcy judge said no we're going to keep the bankruptcy proceedings rolling along.

    The judge doesn't have a direct role to play in protecting one's assets from one's creditors but does need to ensure the playing field is as even as possible so it's within a judge's purview to do what can be done to ensure one litigant isn't unduly burdened in the case.

    That ignores one little thing: justice.

    A bankruptcy judge certainly has to worry about expediency and finding ways to enable the process to move forward. He does NOT, however, have the right to decide matters without regard to the facts simply to avoid the need for Kodak to find some other source of money.

    By the same logic, if Kodak claims that 50 bars of gold in Ft. Knox belong to them, can the judge simply say that it's expedient for him to award that gold to Kodak so that they don't have to find some other source of money? Obviously not - so why is it OK for him to award Kodak with some disputed patents without regard to the legalities of the matter as appears to be the case here (although it could simply be bad AI reporting that makes it appear that way).
  • Reply 15 of 17
    charlitunacharlituna Posts: 7,205member
    vadania wrote: »
    What's with the "Warning Spoiler" above my posts Tallest? I'm genuinely curious?

    You likely just tried to click in the text box before the page was fully draw and triggered one of the tool buttons instead. I used to do it all the time and would see empty spoilers, quotes etc. Especially when I am on my ipad
  • Reply 16 of 17


    This is the worst title ever.  I first read this and assumed it meant that Apple was denying that they owned the patents.  As though someone was accusing Apple of owning them, and apple denied it.  

  • Reply 17 of 17
    evilutionevilution Posts: 1,349member


    Apple buys the patents, sells the ones it doesn't need, job done, move on.

Sign In or Register to comment.