Google's Motorola issues second appeal of dismissed ITC case against Apple
Motorola has given notice to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that it will be contesting the International Trade Commission's dismissal of a case against Apple, the second time the now Google-owned company has filed an appeal tied to that investigation.
The appeals notice, uncovered by FOSS Patents' Florian Mueller after recently being made public, is in regard to an ITC decision to throw out a case against Apple after finding six Motorola patents-in-suit invalid.
In its dismissal, which was filed a month ago, the trade body found Motorola's last standing patent, a property for an infrared proximity sensor, invalid. The company was asserting U.S. Patent No. 6,246,862 for a "sensor controlled user interface for portable communication device," which covers a system that ignores errant screen touches during a phone call.
As noted by Mueller, Google's latest appeal is the second such action for the ITC investigation. The first came in November 2012, which questioned a decision that cleared Apple of infringing on three patents. The contention from Google resulted in a review of the findings, and that appeal has yet to be resolved.
Mueller pointed out that Apple may want to combine the two appeals, thus saving court resources, but the tactic is likely to fail due to the long span between Google's filings.
The appeals notice, uncovered by FOSS Patents' Florian Mueller after recently being made public, is in regard to an ITC decision to throw out a case against Apple after finding six Motorola patents-in-suit invalid.
In its dismissal, which was filed a month ago, the trade body found Motorola's last standing patent, a property for an infrared proximity sensor, invalid. The company was asserting U.S. Patent No. 6,246,862 for a "sensor controlled user interface for portable communication device," which covers a system that ignores errant screen touches during a phone call.
As noted by Mueller, Google's latest appeal is the second such action for the ITC investigation. The first came in November 2012, which questioned a decision that cleared Apple of infringing on three patents. The contention from Google resulted in a review of the findings, and that appeal has yet to be resolved.
Mueller pointed out that Apple may want to combine the two appeals, thus saving court resources, but the tactic is likely to fail due to the long span between Google's filings.
Comments
Clearly, holding a phone against the side of your face was a new and unique idea that had never been thought of prior to this patent...
Though I'm not really sure why Apple would want to combine Motogoogle's appeals.
Hooray! Seeing more or less trivial patents invalidated never gets old. The new digital age is less about inventions and more about obstruction. Only 939488583738292 more patents related to 'touching' 'shaping' 'looking at' and 'methods for performing "an operation" on a list' to go and maybe our court system can start working on legitimate stuff
Court to Google/Motorola: You lose.
Google/Motorola: But, no, we don't.
Court to Google/Motorola: Yes, you do.
Google/Motorola: But, but, no, we don't.
Court to Google/Motorola: Yes, yes you do.
Three strikes and they're out...
Quote:
Originally Posted by starbird73
Court to Google/Motorola: You lose.
Google/Motorola: But, no, we don't.
Court to Google/Motorola: Yes, you do.
Google/Motorola: But, but, no, we don't.
Court to Google/Motorola: Yes, yes you do.
How is that different from what virtually every company does? Appealing is a legal option and most companies, including those you worship, employ that option liberally, frequently and almost automatically. It's absurd, ridiculous, ignorant, hypocritical and unintelligent to mock any company for appealing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee
Waiting for GG to claim Google never initiates anything.
This is a fair comment (about Google, not about GG - that part I couldn't care less about). Motorola is part of Google now, and Google did once declare a non-aggression policy on patents. Whether one agrees with Apple's legal actions, their objective is quite clear. This is not true of Google.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton
LOL More reporting of court paperwork as 'news.'
LOL. More people reading and mocking it. Yet the joke is clearly, squarely on the mocking reader.
I'm glad to see that Patent Troll Google has lost again, but let's not assume that this is a trivial patent simply because the people describing it do so in simple terms.
Multi-touch is a very sophisticated technology, never seen before (despite the claims from idiots who don't know how it works and who always bring up systems working on a different method, such as pushing two wires tougher as if they were "prior art".) ... and deserves to be protected.
Most of these "trivial" patents are not actually trivial. And getting them tried in court IS the way the patent system was designed.
The idea that there's a problem here is asinine-- the only problem is that innovators like Apple can't get timely resolution to these violations, while companies like google skate by.
But it's embarrassing that people would claim that patents stifle innovation-- patents ARE innovation, and the people being "stifled" weren't being innovative, they were being copycats.
If these patents really are trivial they don't stand up in court.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ankleskater
This is a fair comment (about Google, not about GG - that part I couldn't care less about). Motorola is part of Google now, and Google did once declare a non-aggression policy on patents. Whether one agrees with Apple's legal actions, their objective is quite clear. This is not true of Google.
Yes Google did declare a non-agression policy on phone patents when it didn't own any phone patents of its own. However, Google is very protective of its search patents while being dismissive of the copyright infringements it makes while profiting from those copyright infringements. So basically, Google thinks the world should be free if it is someone else's work but should be protected if it is something Google owns. Hypocritical? Absolutely.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ankleskater
LOL. More people reading and mocking it. Yet the joke is clearly, squarely on the mocking reader.
LOL. Articles are totally fair game for mockery; it's what the forums are for. Mocking others for mocking the articles? What are you, an AppleInsider fanboy?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ankleskater
How is that different from what virtually every company does? Appealing is a legal option and most companies, including those you worship, employ that option liberally, frequently and almost automatically. It's absurd, ridiculous, ignorant, hypocritical and unintelligent to mock any company for appealing.
What about a company trying to abuse the court system by constant appeals and delays to delay the inevitable - having to pay up (like Samsung does with Apple - copy now, pay way, way later).
BTW, what non-aggression patent pledge are you and the other poster referring to? Sounds admirable. I'd like to read it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jessi
Multi-touch is a very sophisticated technology, never seen before (despite the claims from idiots who don't know how it works and who always bring up systems working on a different method, such as pushing two wires tougher as if they were "prior art".) ... and deserves to be protected.
Multi-touch had been around for decades before Apple used it.
None of the patents in this case are about multi-touch.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveN
Yes Google did declare a non-agression policy on phone patents when it didn't own any phone patents of its own.
Got a link? The only such policy I can find is their Non-Assertion Pledge about patents use in Free or Open Source software... as long as nobody sues them first.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee
What about a company trying to abuse the court system by constant appeals and delays to delay the inevitable - having to pay up (like Samsung does with Apple - copy now, pay way, way later).
True, Apple's lawyers have dragged FRAND cases through the courts for years, delaying paying for SEP usage.
Several times Federal judges have thrown out Apple lawsuits with prejudice, for trying to use the court system to lower their rates.
Even when a fair judge was willing to set a rate, Apple refused.
As usual, you leave out the key facts.
Most of the FRAND cases that have been settled have been in Apple's favor. Google, Motorola, and Samsung have a history of abusing FRAND rules and Apple's "dragging them out in court" has generally been simply to get them to abide by the FRAND rules they agreed to when they offered their technology.
But I guess it makes you feel better to blame the victim.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
As usual, you leave out the key facts.
Most of the FRAND cases that have been settled have been in Apple's favor. Google, Motorola, and Samsung have a history of abusing FRAND rules and Apple's "dragging them out in court" has generally been simply to get them to abide by the FRAND rules they agreed to when they offered their technology.
But I guess it makes you feel better to blame the victim.
There's been a bit of "abuse' all around depending on how you define it. Decades ago the old school companies like Nokia, Qualcomm, Motorola, Ericsson and others decided on a licensing method and terms that they felt gave them the best chance of maintaining control over the new cell industry that they had been major contributors to. Get together and form industry standards and anyone wanting in had to pay the ones that started it. It worked for several years too.
(As an aside throwing Google in that group is as silly as claiming Apple belongs. Neither held cellular SEP's to abuse in the first place)
Just as Motorola, Qualcomm etc disrupted the traditional phone industry and helped make fledgling cellular the hugely successful market it became while taking a cut for themselves from every cellphone sold, so Apple's iPhone disrupted the communications industry once again in 2007. Unlike the SEP policies that the earlier companies used to protect their place, Apple went the "patent everything and don't share it" route. Aggressively protect their IP with lawsuits rather than royalties. Both schemes work, but Apple is seeing some success in neutering the control that "standards" hold over the industry and that's causing turf fights. Perhaps that will force some of the other players to re-think their willingness to contribute to standards in the first place as it may be more advantageous to keep IP to themselves rather than share. Dunno.
At any rate I don't particularly care for the way licensing royalties have been done by most of the cell standards contributors. It was an industry wide wink-and-nod between all the big techs to keep new players out IMO, and if not they were expected to pay well for the privilege. New companies were at a big disadvantage before they could release their first product.
When Apple came on the scene they were well aware that standards royalties were expected in the cell-phone industry. They're hardly new to the game. But even if they wished to plead ignorance regarding standards royalties when the iPhone was first introduced (Who me? as Alfred E. Neuman famously said) they were approached by some of those SEP holders early on yet still refused to take a license without being sued.
Had the iPhone struggled in the market perhaps Apple may not have been able to afford ignoring the Nokia's and Moto's of the industry, but they didn't struggle. With surging profits from iPhone sales Apple chose to disregard some of the royalty demands unless pressured, Nokia had to play hardball to get Apple to take a license to their standards package. Moto is still trying. Certainly you wouldn't support Apple knowing full-well that they were not licensed to use Motorola's patents yet 6 years later still using them for free, not paying a single penny, despite the billions in profit the iPhone has brought them with technology invented and developed by Motorola in part. Apple's legal teams made it possible to knowingly use IP without a license to do so.
IMO there's plenty of fault to spread around for the situation that SEP's, PAE's and software patents in general are now in. No party is blameless, and all sides share some guilt.
Originally Posted by Bean Cube
Don't care about all these. Just want to ask when we will have our public 3G network after we'd paid so much taxes after all these years.
Who promised you that? That was never going to happen.
Nice try. You're managing to ignore the fact that Motorola (now Google) and Samsung have BOTH been found guilty of FRAND abuse while Apple has not (note that Apple does have some SEP patents, as well).