Apple scores back to back wins vs. Google's Motorola in German, ITC patent cases

Posted:
in iPhone edited January 2014
Apple gained two favorable court decisions in its patent battles with Google's Motorola subsidiary today, one in Germany and other at the U.S. International Trade Commission.

Guilty verdict against Google in Germany halts its Motorola case against Apple


In the German case, as outlined by patent law expert Florian Mueller of FOSS Patents, Judge Andreas Voss issued a stay requested by Apple, suspending the case pending the results of an ongoing antitrust investigation by the European Commission examining Google's use of Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) against Apple.

Google's use of SEP, particularly its threats to leverage those patents to gain injunctions against Apple's sales if its onerous demands for licensing royalties were not met, has turned the patent dispute into an antitrust investigation.

Google has sought to use the patents it acquired with Motorola Mobility to win extraordinary royalty claims against both Microsoft and Apple, related to products making use of H.264 video codecs, WiFi 802.11 wireless networking, and even 2G GPRS mobile data.

Apple and Microsoft have both argued that Google's demands are neither Fair, Reasonable nor NonDiscriminatory, with Apple noting in particular that Google was asking for 12 times the usual royalty rate.

Patent abuse by Google and Samsung related to SEPs (which are committed to licensing on FRAND terms) sparked an investigation by the EC last year, and this summer the group handed down a preliminary antitrust ruling finding Google guilty, similar to an earlier guilty finding against Samsung.

ITC denies Google a rehearing over Apple's patent claims

Motorola got a second setback today when the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied a motion by Motorola Mobility for a rehearing of a decision favorable to Apple.

US Appeals Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. | Source: U.S. Courts


Back in October 2010, Motorola Mobility had sought to impose an ITC import ban against Apple, resulting reciprocal legal action by Apple. Claims on both sides were dismissed by judge Richard Posner in June 2012.

Judge Posner has described patents (at least in the smartphone industry) as being, in his opinion, unworthy of protection by the courts, an example of America's patent-related lawsuits being a crapshoot where the outcome may be based simply upon the arbitrary feeling of the particular justice ruling that day.

However, a favorable appeal won by Apple in August reasserted two Apple patents at issue in the ITC's ongoing investigation. Today's decision blocks Google's request to rehear that decision.

"This is very significant progress for Apple in its patent enforcement efforts against the Google subsidiary and the wider Android ecosystem," Mueller wrote."This is very significant progress for Apple in its patent enforcement efforts against the Google subsidiary and the wider Android ecosystem" - Florian Mueller

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: Mueller further noted, "the two patents that Apple revived on appeal are multi-touch patents that have previously been asserted, then withdrawn, but could be reasserted anytime against Samsung."

The two patents join a series of others Apple is strategically using to stop what it has regularly referred to as the "slavish" copying of its product inventions and designs, including the so-called "Steve Jobs patent" that was challenged at the US Patent and Trademark Office only to be fully reaffirmed in a form stronger than it was prior to the reexamination in mid October.

Samsung case continues next week

In parallel, the initial Apple v. Samsung litigation in the Northern District of California will continue next week, with a retrial hearing to clarify the state of $400 million of the initial $1 billion settlement Apple won against Samsung last fall related to patent infringement.

A jury will decide whether to award more, less or an equal amount of damages to Apple related to the $400 million portion of the original awarded disputed by Samsung over confusion and flawed responses by the original jury related to their damage award.

Apple presented a simplified jury verdict form that Judge Lucy Koh approved on Tuesday. She also rejected Samsung's efforts to create a more complex and potentially confusing breakdown that would make it easier to again re-challenge whatever the jury decided.

"Samsung has been unsuccessful so far with its attempts to muddy the water for the new jury," Mueller wrote, outlining a series of attempts the company has made to add layers of complexity to the jury verdict form.
«134

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 71

    Drei Beifall für Apple! Der Sieg ist unser!

  • Reply 2 of 71

    Sieg Heil!

     

     

  • Reply 3 of 71
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

     

    Drei Beifall für Apple! Der Sieg ist unser!


     

    Korrekt wäre: "Dreifacher Beifall" oder "Dreimal Beifall"... aber Du bist eben nur ein dummes Nazischwein.

     

    Heil Apple!

  • Reply 4 of 71
    Du hast
  • Reply 5 of 71
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Adolf Muller View Post

     

     

    Korrekt wäre: "Dreifacher Beifall" oder "Dreimal Beifall"... aber Du bist eben nur ein dummes Nazischwein.

     

    Heil Apple!


     

    Was auch immer, Kumpel.

     

    Wir brauchen nicht noch Tekstud.

  • Reply 6 of 71
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by alienzed View Post



    Du hast

     

    Ich eigentlich verstehen, dass die Musik auf.

  • Reply 7 of 71
    Ve haf vays uff getten unsere vay!! Ja!!!
  • Reply 8 of 71
    Googlerola, prepare yourself, Apple's gonna go in dry!
  • Reply 9 of 71

    Yes a clear Apple win. I think that Google by now must have figured out they wasted billions of $ buying MotoMob. 

    Go Apple Go !!!

  • Reply 10 of 71
    Samung gonna recoup those costs with the ipad mini retina. Not a story
  • Reply 11 of 71
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,630member
    Where's Googleguy to explain Moto and Googs are separate companies?
  • Reply 12 of 71
    quinneyquinney Posts: 2,521member
    jungmark wrote: »
    Where's Googleguy to explain Moto and Googs are separate companies?

    It must be difficult getting approval for public dissemination of talking points on a Friday afternoon.
  • Reply 13 of 71
    The "Story" will GRoW when import bans and changes to Andriod Come and they will .....

    If you haven't noticed both SamScum and Giggles see the writing on the wall, I.e. Crome and SamScum - POS Tizan!
  • Reply 14 of 71
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jungmark View Post



    Where's Googleguy to explain Moto and Googs are separate companies?

     

    The usual suspects will be along shortly to issue blanket denials and reaffirm Google's sainthood.

    Meanwhile, I made some popcorn. Want some?

  • Reply 15 of 71
    The "Story" will GRoW when import bans and changes to Andriod Come and they will .....

    If you haven't noticed both SamScum and Giggles see the writing on the wall, I.e. Crome and SamScum - POS Tizan!

    Apple isn't required to license multi-touch. they will either make it very expensive or deny all requests to license. If so, the competition will all begin to look more like old Blackberry phones then anything else.

    w00t w00t
  • Reply 16 of 71
    Originally Posted by Macky the Macky View Post

    Apple isn't required to license multi-touch.

     

    Hmm... I can't help but wonder if it will be forcibly made FRAND... 

  • Reply 17 of 71
    Apple isn't required to license multi-touch.

    Hmm... I can't help but wonder if it will be forcibly made FRAND... 

    Companies choose to commit patents to standards. There isn't a standard that requires multitouch that Apple participated in and pledged its patents towards with FRAND terms. No one is going to force them to in the US at least. It will be interesting to see how successful these patents will be.
  • Reply 18 of 71
    Das machine is nicht für gefingerpoken und mittengrabben. Ist easy
    schnappen der springenwerk, blowenfusen und corkenpoppen mit
    spitzensparken.
  • Reply 19 of 71
    Hmm... I can't help but wonder if it will be forcibly made FRAND... 

    I agree
  • Reply 20 of 71
    Hmm... I can't help but wonder if it will be forcibly made FRAND... 

    FRAND is for communication standards that cannot be otherwise worked around... not for company specific design UI that alternates are available, such as the older Blackberry interface.
Sign In or Register to comment.