Apple wins appeal reinstating ITC case against Google's Motorola
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.
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:
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.
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:
- U.S. Patent No. 7,663,607: "Multipoint touchscreen"
- U.S. Patent No. 7,812,828: "Ellipse fitting for multi-touch surfaces"
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.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by cnocbui
Obama better veto it, now that he has set the precedent.
you two troll see FRAND written somewhere?
Quote:
Originally Posted by cnocbui
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riss
you two troll see FRAND written somewhere?
I was expecting trolls to comment about Obamas decision.
... and yes as unlikely as it might be even an import ban on non-SEP patents can be overruled by the President.
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...
...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/
Mueller pointed out this patent is about to expire.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ
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).
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell
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
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.
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.