Google calls Apple 'unwilling licensee' in bid for injunction over FRAND patent violations
Google and Motorola on Thursday entered an initial filing with the U.S. Federal Court of Appeals over the dismissal of a patent suit against Apple, which saw a circuit court judge toss arguments from both parties in 2011.
The filing comes four months after Apple issued its own such document with the CAFC in November, with Google now able to outline its appeal of Judge Richard A. Posner's June 2012 ruling and respond to the Cupertino company's brief.
As noted by FOSS Patents' Florian Mueller, Google is appealing the FRAND aspects of Judge Posner's decision to toss the case in an attempt to win injunctive relief against certain Apple products.
Google claims Judge Posner made a number of mistakes when he "categorically" barred injunctive relief for infringement of claimed standards essential patents (SEPs), including a failure "to apply the four-factor eBay test to evaluate Motorola?s claim for injunctive relief." The jurist effectively banned injunctive relief based on FRAND-committed patents, instead saying that only monetary damages could be sought unless a scenario arose in which Apple refused to pay royalties.
Google argues the decision hinders district courts from making case-by-case decisions on such matters in the future.
To this end, Google now says that Apple is an unwilling licensee of the SEPs, which allows the Mountain View tech giant to get around an FTC rule that mandates all legal pursuits related to FRAND-related patents be halted. By working around the nebulous rules set forth by the FTC and USPTO regarding such litigation, Google's Motorola hopes to win its 2.25 percent royalty demand, with which Apple has yet to comply.
From Google's filing:
The filing comes four months after Apple issued its own such document with the CAFC in November, with Google now able to outline its appeal of Judge Richard A. Posner's June 2012 ruling and respond to the Cupertino company's brief.
As noted by FOSS Patents' Florian Mueller, Google is appealing the FRAND aspects of Judge Posner's decision to toss the case in an attempt to win injunctive relief against certain Apple products.
Google claims Judge Posner made a number of mistakes when he "categorically" barred injunctive relief for infringement of claimed standards essential patents (SEPs), including a failure "to apply the four-factor eBay test to evaluate Motorola?s claim for injunctive relief." The jurist effectively banned injunctive relief based on FRAND-committed patents, instead saying that only monetary damages could be sought unless a scenario arose in which Apple refused to pay royalties.
Google argues the decision hinders district courts from making case-by-case decisions on such matters in the future.
To this end, Google now says that Apple is an unwilling licensee of the SEPs, which allows the Mountain View tech giant to get around an FTC rule that mandates all legal pursuits related to FRAND-related patents be halted. By working around the nebulous rules set forth by the FTC and USPTO regarding such litigation, Google's Motorola hopes to win its 2.25 percent royalty demand, with which Apple has yet to comply.
From Google's filing:
Apple will respond to Google's claims in a second filing, while amicus curiae submissions from those within the industry are now open.Motorola offered considerable evidence showing that, unlike every other major cellular handset manufacturer, Apple has been an unwilling licensee vis-?-vis Motorola's standards-essential patent portfolio.
Comments
Not the least bit off topic. That's essentially what the judge told Google the last time around.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Not the least bit off topic. That's essentially what the judge told Google the last time around.
And told Apple as well. He apparently had his fill of both of them, understanding the court was being played in a business negotiation.
(To be accurate, Judge Pender's ruling was made well before Google's purchase Motorola was completed, so he never really said anything of the sort to them)
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
I hope we can we finally stop saying that Google doesn't sue anyone.
To be fair this isn't a new action, simply answering Apple's appeal of a ruling and a case filed well before Google took control of Motorola. A bit too late in the game to ignore it. But Google has finally (after 15 years) followed thru on it's very first IP infringement action in suing British Telecom a couple weeks back. Some might say they have a lot of catching up to do, but personally I hope it's a rarity. There's already too many questionable patent infringement actions in the pipeline. We don't need Google jumping in now too.
IMO I don't think it's likely to become habit anyway. They've always had a stated aversion to suing their tech neighbors.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Splash-reverse
It is 'put a sock on it'.
The idiom "put a sock in it" refers to the old gramophone which had no other form of volume control than to put a rolled up sock in the horn part. The updated legal terminology for please be quiet is "Shut your pie hole". I better put a smiley on that one.
Haha… right on !
Correction. When the plaintiff (Motorola, in this case) doesn't get what they want, it's called a 'loss'. Your silly spin notwithstanding.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Correction. When the plaintiff (Motorola, in this case) doesn't get what they want, it's called a 'loss'. Your silly spin notwithstanding.
Did I say anything at all about Motorola losing or not losing anything? I thought not. Your silly spin doesn't work.
Google is confused and desperate. They should not have bought Motorola.
They need to license the patent to Apple for the same price as everyone else.
Did Samsung and HP get Andy Rubin taken off of Android?
Did samsung and HP feel that Andy did not manage to polish the OS enough?
Now the next Android will be WebKit based. That's the closest they can get to using Apple software in their Android.
Google had better focus on search and advertising before they get challenged by Apple and Samsung...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
And told Apple as well. He apparently had his fill of both of them, understanding the court was being played in a business negotiation.
(To be accurate, Judge Pender's ruling was made well before Google's purchase Motorola was completed, so he never really said anything of the sort to them)
Not entirely accurate. With both parties (Apple and Motorola) having their cases dismissed it could be considered a draw.
However, it doesn't end there. Posner had some very strong words regarding abuse of FRAND patents, and his statements were highly favorable to Apples position (and that of most reasonable tech companies). In this case it was a huge win for Apple and a serious blow to Motorola/Google.
Google made a settlement with the FTC over their patent abuse, and now it's going to get put to the test. The catch is the term "unwilling licensee". Google is still trying (rather foolishly) to claim 2.25% is reasonable. So Google thinks they can ask for the moon and if Apple doesn't pay they can try to claim they are "unwilling". I seriously doubt this is going to fly as anyone could ask for ridiculous amounts to try and claim the other party is unwilling to license.
My prediction is the FTC is going to be looking at this very closely and will "modify" the terms of the settlement. If Google can continue to abuse the patent system even after making a deal with the FTC, then that deal is worthless.
I agree. It's just in bad in taste to sue people who steal when you're entire business model is based on stealing from others¡
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
I agree. It's just in bad in taste to sue people who steal when you're entire business model is based on stealing from others¡
Well played sir. . .
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee
Not entirely accurate. With both parties (Apple and Motorola) having their cases dismissed it could be considered a draw.
However, it doesn't end there. Posner had some very strong words regarding abuse of FRAND patents, and his statements were highly favorable to Apples position (and that of most reasonable tech companies). In this case it was a huge win for Apple and a serious blow to Motorola/Google.
Google made a settlement with the FTC over their patent abuse, and now it's going to get put to the test. The catch is the term "unwilling licensee". Google is still trying (rather foolishly) to claim 2.25% is reasonable. So Google thinks they can ask for the moon and if Apple doesn't pay they can try to claim they are "unwilling". I seriously doubt this is going to fly as anyone could ask for ridiculous amounts to try and claim the other party is unwilling to license.
My prediction is the FTC is going to be looking at this very closely and will "modify" the terms of the settlement. If Google can continue to abuse the patent system even after making a deal with the FTC, then that deal is worthless.
Yes it was entirely accurate.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/06/in-bid-for-patent-sanity-judge-throws-out-entire-applemotorola-case/
Anyway that's not worth arguing about. IMO the FTC deal is flawed from the get-go if it's not applied to others (ie, Interdigital)) who demand injunctions for supposed SEP infringement. The ITC accepted just such a case this week.
The current proposal also leaves open the possibility of a company, say Nokia, demanding a Moto/Google injunction over FRAND IP claims while Google would be prevented from answering their lawsuit in kind. Kinda one-sided don't you think if no one else will be held to that standard? Nonetheless Google was willing to accept it anyway.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleSauce007
Now the next Android will be WebKit based. That's the closest they can get to using Apple software in their Android.
This is so stupid, I think reading it gave me cancer!
Wow, thanks for replying. Even though the i and o are next to each other it could've easily have been read as a typo, yet you respond. So I've been saying it wrong all my life.
Wouldn't most Google users fall under the term of "unwilling licensee"?
A company that steals, lies and whines is a company that needs to be destroyed.
"If you are so concerned about your privacy, you can move house", from their then CEO.
Nobody in their right mind can defend this truly mind blowing obnoxious statement nor the person saying it.
So by extension the entire company is itself obnoxious and pathetic.
Words cannot describe how much I hate them. I am annoyed that Apple still has a relationship with them, although not as extensive as in the past.