Appeals court rules Apple can sue Motorola, creates claim chaos for Data Detectors

Posted:
in iPhone edited April 2014
A U.S. appeals court ruled that Apple and Google's Motorola can sue each other over smartphone patents, overturning Judge Richard Posner's opinion from the summer of 2012. The court also sided with a claim construction that does not favor Apple, and may impact its case with Samsung.

Apple Data Detectors


According to a report by Bloomberg, the appeals court ruled that Judge Posner "wrongly threw out the case."

Judge Posner had issued a critical rebuke of Apple's entire business model centered around innovation, recommending that Apple license its technology to Motorola instead of seeking an injunction which said would be "catastrophic" and harmful to consumers.

Forcing Motorola to adopt inferior, non-Apple technology, as opposed to paying a royalty, would not benefit consumers, Posner said. Apple doesn't want to be forced to license its patented technologies to Google for use in Android.

Apple doesn't want to be forced to license its patented technologies to Google for use in Android. An injunction on infringement, Apple's attorney argued at that trial, "means we're not competing with them where they are using our technology against us."

The appeals court decision opens the potential for Apple and Motorola to resume their lawsuits, which cover largely the same ground involved in the two Apple vs. Samsung cases, one of which is still being argued in court.

Patent claim construction

Another potential impact of the new appeals court ruling on Apple's current litigation is that it sided with Google's Motorola in arguing that, for the Apple Data Detectors patent, the analysis done to create links must involve a server process separate from the client.

This claim construction could allow not only Motorola to sidestep Apple's patent, but could also benefit Samsung, which also wants to argue that it technically doesn't infringe upon Apple's patent because of a specific interpretation of the word "server."

In the Apple vs Samsung case, the presiding Judge Lucy Koh arrived at a different decision. Following the 90 page decision handed down by the appeals court, Apple and Samsung are working to develop arguments to the court about how to proceed.

In tweets by CNET reporter Shara Tibken, Judge Koh reportedly said the issue could "potentially blow up what we've already done with this jury for a month," but the jurist was also cited as saying, "Just because a district court judge has construed a claim one way doesn't mean I have to adopt that."

Tibken also reported that "Apple and Samsung now working out plan for Monday for new testimony related to '647 patent."
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 43
    Thank the progress heavens that the appeals Court has seen the light with the crazily 647 patent. That patent claim construction basically gutted that whole patent. Now apple doesn't own the idea of data linking just one specific excexution of it. I'm
  • Reply 2 of 43
    clemynxclemynx Posts: 1,510member
    [QUOTE]Forcing Motorola to adopt inferior, non-Apple technology, as opposed to paying a royalty, would not benefit consumers, Posner said. [/QUOTE]

    Well boohooo. Too bad for them.
    Users of phones from Apple's competitors can't use the same tech, what a scandal!
    :/
  • Reply 3 of 43
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 31,513member
    Posner is the equivalent of a judicial troll.
  • Reply 4 of 43
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 31,513member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Peterbob View Post



    Thank the progress heavens that the appeals Court has seen the light with the crazily 647 patent. That patent claim construction basically gutted that whole patent. Now apple doesn't own the idea of data linking just one specific excexution of it. I'm

     

    Apple will push this to the Supreme Court if necessary...and they should.

  • Reply 5 of 43
    Apple will push this to the Supreme Court if necessary...and they should.

    I would hope so, that would actually force the U.S to retructure it's patent system and actually decide how and when software should be patentable. Maybe even get more funding for those poor souls at the patent office.
  • Reply 6 of 43
    prokipprokip Posts: 150member
    C'mon, do these jurists really understand any of this. I've watched judges fall asleep on their hand as counsel talked stuff as simple as 'client', 'server'. Data detectors? No chance ! Some of these adjudicators need a PhD in quantum physics to really 'get it'.

    It's time to appoint specialist judges for these types of cases and indeed change the law to allow professional jury panels who will save both time money and truly bring a just and fair outcome to these types of causes.
  • Reply 7 of 43
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 31,513member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Peterbob View Post





    I would hope so, that would actually force the U.S to retructure it's patent system and actually decide how and when software should be patentable. Maybe even get more funding for those poor souls at the patent office.

     

    Why would it "force the U.S. to restructure it's patent system"? The Supreme Court's job is to judge whether laws are constitutional. This case has nothing to do with that.

  • Reply 8 of 43
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 31,513member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by prokip View Post



    C'mon, do these jurists really understand any of this. I've watched judges fall asleep on their hand as counsel talked stuff as simple as 'client', 'server'. Data detectors? No chance ! Some of these adjudicators need a PhD in quantum physics to really 'get it'.



    It's time to appoint specialist judges for these types of cases and indeed change the law to allow professional jury panels who will save both time money and truly bring a just and fair outcome to these types of causes.

     

    There have been numerous calls for a special "patent court" filled with industry and patent professionals. There is some merit to the idea, however regular cases of law are supposed to be judged by juries composed of "normal" people. It is a problem, either way.

  • Reply 9 of 43
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 21,302member
    Apple will push this to the Supreme Court if necessary...and they should.

    Doesn't seem like an issue SCOTUS would find worthy of hearing IMO.
  • Reply 10 of 43
    It amazes me how the US court system is attempting to punish Apple for being unique.
  • Reply 11 of 43
    Why would it "force the U.S. to restructure it's patent system"? The Supreme Court's job is to judge whether laws are constitutional. This case has nothing to do with that.

    More national spot light, maybe bring the issue to the forfront of congress. Might even get a patent system that is more inline with that of the EU.

    Just how the aeoro case vs the broadcasters is getting more focus on the issues within or antiquated copyright laws maybe a supreme Court case would do the same for our dark aged patent laws.
  • Reply 12 of 43
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,719member
    Good thing the ruling was overturned. I can't see how the gov can force one company to license it's non SEP patents.
  • Reply 13 of 43
    It amazes me how the US court system is attempting to punish Apple for being unique.

    Apple is not being punished. All these cases are a result of our patent system not being able to handle software and when it should and shouldn't patentable. Apple took advantage of a rubber stamp, over streched pattent office, they are not the only ones they just do it better than most. View this as a correction or discussion about what exactly should a patent entail? How long should be viable? Does software deserve to share the same proctection that pharmaceutical drugs receive under our patent system? Is copyright the right way to proctect software instead of patents? All huge questions.
  • Reply 14 of 43
    prokipprokip Posts: 150member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

     

     

    There have been numerous calls for a special "patent court" filled with industry and patent professionals. There is some merit to the idea, however regular cases of law are supposed to be judged by juries composed of "normal" people. It is a problem, either way.


     

    I am an IT savvy lawyer who also is a CPA (forgive the brag) who is the key witness in an IT case with $100M in prospect damages.  Our lawyer in the case holds postgraduate qualifications in electrical engineering.  He is worth his weight in gold as he cuts through all the bulls**t.

     

    "Normal' just does not cut it in these types of cases any more.  More importantly, justice is just not done, nor even seen to be done in these cases.  Time to wise up as community and fix it.

  • Reply 15 of 43
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 31,513member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Peterbob View Post





    More national spot light, maybe bring the issue to the forfront of congress. Might even get a patent system that is more inline with that of the EU.



    Just how the aeoro case vs the broadcasters is getting more focus on the issues within or antiquated copyright laws maybe a supreme Court case would do the same for our dark aged patent laws.

     

    As far as I understand things, the EU does not really have a unified approach to patent validity and enforcement. I've seen numerous instances of Apple's patents receiving different rulings in, for example, Germany versus England.

  • Reply 16 of 43
    gatorguy wrote: »
    Doesn't seem like an issue SCOTUS would find worthy of hearing IMO.

    It is an issue SCOTUS would find worthy in my opinion. It is scandalous how many companies in the Android camp have chosen to steal instead of spending millions to billions on their own technologies. Then when sued for theft, they choose to sue to defend themselves. If Android is so uniquely innovative then that camp does not need anything from Apple.
  • Reply 17 of 43
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 31,513member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by prokip View Post

     

     

    I am an IT savvy lawyer who also is a CPA (forgive the brag) who is the key witness in an IT case with $100M in prospect damages.  Our lawyer in the case holds postgraduate qualifications in electrical engineering.  He is worth his weight in gold as he cuts through all the bulls**t.

     

    "Normal' just does not cut it in these types of cases any more.  More importantly, justice is just not done, nor even seen to be done in these cases.  Time to wise up as community and fix it.


     

    If you are involved in an ongoing case as a witness, aren't you violating the law by discussing any element of that case here?

  • Reply 18 of 43
    prokipprokip Posts: 150member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

     

     

    If you are involved in an ongoing case as a witness, aren't you violating the law by discussing any element of that case here?


     

    What ?  Another bush lawyer on the forum.  Why did I bother?

  • Reply 19 of 43
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 31,513member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post





    Doesn't seem like an issue SCOTUS would find worthy of hearing IMO.

     

    You may be right about this.

  • Reply 20 of 43
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 31,513member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by prokip View Post

     

     

    What ?  Another bush lawyer on the forum.  Why did I bother?


     

    What do you mean by "bush lawyer"?

Sign In or Register to comment.