Apple moves to renew FRAND licensing suit against Motorola
With a court battle against Samsung raging on the West Coast, Apple on Tuesday asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, D.C. to renew a lawsuit against Motorola's alleged unreasonable licensing fees for declared-essential cellphone technology.
Apple counsel requested that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit revive a lawsuit against Google's Motorola Mobility over a FRAND (fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory) contract, claiming the handset maker charged unreasonable rates for declared standard essential 3G cellular tech, reports Bloomberg.
"You're talking about billions of dollars hanging over the head of Apple," Apple lawyer Joshua Rosenkranz said in court today.
The case is an extension of a FRAND-related action that was dismissed by a Wisconsin district court in 2012.
Apple is reasserting the same argument seen in its opening brief to the CAFC appeal filed in July 2013. According to the document, the company claims Motorola "demand[ed] that Apple take a license at a rate that was more than 12 times what Motorola was charging other licensees for the same technology--a rate that was unfair, unreasonable, and decidedly discriminatory."
In the deal, Motorola asked Apple for 2.25 percent of each iPhone sale, a rate that would represent approximately $12 per iPhone, or "12 times what Apple was already paying to license Motorola's SEPs." It is thought that Apple was referencing indirect licensing fees paid to other component manufacturers.
At the hearing on Tuesday, Motorola attorney Kathleen Sullivan maintained that "a reasonable rate can be different for different implementers," and claims Apple did not respond to the company's "opening offer." Apple later tendered an offer to pay $1 per iPhone to "buy litigation peace and move on," but Motorola refused.
It is unclear how the ongoing lawsuit will affect Motorola Mobility's future handlers at Lenovo after the Chinese company purchased the handset maker from Google in January for $2.91 billion. The acquisition, which will give Google a six percent stake in Lenovo as part of the deal, is currently awaiting regulatory approval. Google will also hold on to "vast majority" of patents, but it is not known if the batch includes those being asserted by Motorola in the present case.
With a litigation history going back to 2010, the two companies have faced off in court a number of times, including the somewhat controversial Apple v. Motorola suit dismissed in 2012 by Judge Richard Posner. The CAFC heard arguments to reopen that case in September.
Aside from the CAFC case, Apple and Motorola have a suit pending in Florida over separate patent claims. A trial is slated to begin in August with the parties asserting a total of eight patents.
Apple counsel requested that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit revive a lawsuit against Google's Motorola Mobility over a FRAND (fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory) contract, claiming the handset maker charged unreasonable rates for declared standard essential 3G cellular tech, reports Bloomberg.
"You're talking about billions of dollars hanging over the head of Apple," Apple lawyer Joshua Rosenkranz said in court today.
The case is an extension of a FRAND-related action that was dismissed by a Wisconsin district court in 2012.
Apple is reasserting the same argument seen in its opening brief to the CAFC appeal filed in July 2013. According to the document, the company claims Motorola "demand[ed] that Apple take a license at a rate that was more than 12 times what Motorola was charging other licensees for the same technology--a rate that was unfair, unreasonable, and decidedly discriminatory."
In the deal, Motorola asked Apple for 2.25 percent of each iPhone sale, a rate that would represent approximately $12 per iPhone, or "12 times what Apple was already paying to license Motorola's SEPs." It is thought that Apple was referencing indirect licensing fees paid to other component manufacturers.
At the hearing on Tuesday, Motorola attorney Kathleen Sullivan maintained that "a reasonable rate can be different for different implementers," and claims Apple did not respond to the company's "opening offer." Apple later tendered an offer to pay $1 per iPhone to "buy litigation peace and move on," but Motorola refused.
It is unclear how the ongoing lawsuit will affect Motorola Mobility's future handlers at Lenovo after the Chinese company purchased the handset maker from Google in January for $2.91 billion. The acquisition, which will give Google a six percent stake in Lenovo as part of the deal, is currently awaiting regulatory approval. Google will also hold on to "vast majority" of patents, but it is not known if the batch includes those being asserted by Motorola in the present case.
With a litigation history going back to 2010, the two companies have faced off in court a number of times, including the somewhat controversial Apple v. Motorola suit dismissed in 2012 by Judge Richard Posner. The CAFC heard arguments to reopen that case in September.
Aside from the CAFC case, Apple and Motorola have a suit pending in Florida over separate patent claims. A trial is slated to begin in August with the parties asserting a total of eight patents.
Comments
Motorola stupidity AGAIN?
Motorola was just a puppet with Google's arm up their ass...
It is a natural experience though:
If you'd understood anything Apple does, you'd know why they design things the way they do. But perhaps you were just posting to be the first in a thread, which to me seems like an illogical thing to do, essentially negating what you wrote.
Oh you know what isn't "essential" slide to unlock
oh you know what isn't "essential" the up an down motion you're mom used on you're dad's cock to make you.
It is a natural experience though:
If you'd understood anything Apple does, you'd know why they design things the way they do. But perhaps you were just posting to be the first in a thread, which to me seems like an illogical thing to do, essentially negating what you wrote.
Thank goodness skeuomorphism didn't extend to a depiction of a brass latch on the iPhone lock screen!
Nobody is claiming it is.
Lol. About as relevant as original post.
Motorola was just a puppet with Google's arm up their ass...
How's that? This lawsuit started before Motorola was acquired by Google
. Google's acquisition was first announced in August 2011, voted on by the shareholders in November 2011 and only finalized in May 2012. Meanwhile this court case dates back to 2010.
There's no need for that type of language. There's ways to get your point across without vulgarities.
It's not AGAIN, it's the same one. What was the outcome of the first trial? It says it was dismissed, but what does that mean? Did the court feel that Motorola fees weren't unfair?
Edit: my questions aren't directly at you. A thinking out loud kinda deal.
It's not AGAIN, it's the same one. What was the outcome of the first trial? It says it was dismissed, but what does that mean? Did the court feel that Motorola fees weren't unfair?
Edit: my questions aren't directly at you. A thinking out loud kinda deal.
If you don't mind I'll address your thinking out loud questions
. The dismissal came after Motorola brought a 'motion for guidance', essentially asking Apple to commit to a license deal on court-determined terms. Apple took the position, in response to Motorola's motion, that it would only accept to be bound by the court's determination if the royalty doesn't exceed $1 per iPhone. That's where it went wrong for Apple. That response resulted in the court doubting Apple's intentions for the lawsuit. If Apple simply would have agreed to commit to the court-determined terms the case in all likelihood would have gone ahead.
Motorola was just a puppet with Google's arm up their ass...
This lawsuit predates Google getting involved, in this case Google inherited the issue. I have said this before, Motorola originally attempt to blackmail Apple into crossing licensing all of Apple iPhone patent to get a fair deal on the SEP. This fact came out when Google bought Motorola and the FTC and EU order google not to use SEP and non SEP lawsuits against the cell phone industry which they agreed. Notice Apple keep bring this up since they need to close on the FRAND of the SEP. They have yet to pay Motorola a Dine of what is owed.
There's no need for that type of language. There's ways to get your point across without vulgarities.
Very true....too bad he can't "think" of any.
Poor little Rue.
It is a natural experience though:
If you'd understood anything Apple does, you'd know why they design things the way they do. But perhaps you were just posting to be the first in a thread, which to me seems like an illogical thing to do, essentially negating what you wrote.
It is already unlocked and you can't even "slide to lock" that lock. Depiction of the insecurity of an Android device I guess.