Court denies Verizon, Ford participation in Apple v. Motorola appeals

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 22
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,388member

    Originally Posted by jungmark View Post


    Not to bring in politics but Obama has been president for the 4+ years.


     


    You should specifically bring in politics; he expanded the aforementioned programs.

  • Reply 22 of 22
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,395member
    It looks as there's a push to more specifically require patent-holders to prove they actually use claimed IP if asking the ITC for an injunction. IMO that's the way it should be. I can't think of any reason for the ITC to issue an injunction to protect a" domestic industry" that doesn't exist.

    http://cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/12-1445.Opinion.10-1-2013.1.PDF
    Page 11 is particularly interesting where the US Appeals Court explains why Microsoft is denied in it's case against Motorola.

    "In this appeal, we do not reach Microsoft’s challenge to the non-infringement determination because we find substantial evidence to support the Commission’s finding of no domestic industry, which suffices to support its finding of no violation based on this patent...

    ...There is no question about the substantiality of Microsoft's investment in its operating system or about the importance of that operating system to mobile phones on which it runs. But that is not enough under the statute.[B] Section 337[/B], though not requiring that an article protected by the patent be produced in the United States,[B] unmistakably requires that the domestic company's substantial investments relate to actual 'articles protected by the patent.' [/B]19 U.S.C. §§ 1337(a)(2), (3). A company seeking section 337 protection must therefore provide evidence that its substantial domestic investment—e.g.,in research and development—relates to an actual article that practices the patent, regardless of whether or not that article is manufactured domestically or abroad...

    ..[B].Microsoft simply failed to identify any actual phones with the required components performing as required[/B]."

    [SIZE=4]Based on the US Appeals Court written judgement, just because a company owns a piece of IP doesn't mean they're entitled to an injunction at the ITC even if infringement were identified. If they don't have a product that uses the claimed IP then the ITC isn't the proper venue to address it. [/SIZE]
Sign In or Register to comment.