[The Faceless Master]

A U.S. judge has tossed out the Apple v. Motorola patent case for good, according to reports. Judge Richard Posner of the U.S. District of Northern Illinois said neither Apple nor Motorola has been able to prove damages and that neither company would be permitted to refile a claim, according to All Things Digital. "It would be ridiculous to dismiss a suit for failure to prove damages and allow the plaintiff to refile the suit so that he could have a second chance to prove damages. This case is therefore dismissed with prejudice; a separate order to that effect is being entered today." ATD quoted Posner as having said in his ruling. Earlier this month, Posner canceled Apple's patent infringement jury trial against Google's Motorola Mobility unit, then granted Apple's request for an injunction hearing. On Wednesday, Posner strongly questioned Apple's bid for an injunction against Motorola smartphones, saying, according to Reuters, that a ban on sales could have "catastrophic effects" and would be "contrary to the public interest."

one down, 94363437 crappy patent battles to go.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-574...le-v-motorola/

[saltywalrus]

Has Google ever lost in court? They must have some badass attorneys.

[legendnthamaking]

Apple won't stop until they control everything. Its like the reverse of Steve Jobs warning about IBM.

[Andrex]

Justice prevails.

[Angelus Errare]

Has Google ever lost in court? They must have some badass attorneys.

They're going to lose the case I'm building against them.

*Plays Saints Row 3 Insurance scam mini game*

[ReturnOfTheRAT]

Droid

[numble]

Has Google ever lost in court? They must have some badass attorneys.

They lost this case. Along with Apple. Both suits were dropped.

[Copernicus]

Alternate title: No Matter the Retina Resolution, Justice is Blind - Judge Turns a Blind Eye to the Invention Beholder

[DarkFlow]

They lost this case. Along with Apple. Both suits were dropped.

This is not a loss for Google seeing as apple is the one who brought it.

[The Faceless Master]

Has Google ever lost in court? They must have some badass attorneys.

to be fair, this Apple/Motorola battle was started years before Google bought Motorola.

[giga]

This is not a loss for Google seeing as apple is the one who brought it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorol..._v._Apple_Inc.

Apple's suit was a countersuit to Moto's original suit.

[numble]

This is not a loss for Google seeing as apple is the one who brought it.

Motorola sued Apple before Apple sued Motorola. Especially in this specific suit.

This suit also has Judge Posner saying he doesn't think Motorola can get an injunction over a FRAND patent, which can be a big blow to Google/Motorola if it strikes a precedent, since a lot of their other cases (such as trying to ban the XBOX 360 unless they pay a 2.35% royalty per device, hinge on FRAND patents).

From OP article:

The one claim Motorola had left was based on a patent it had agreed to let other companies use in exchange for the covered-technology becoming an industry standard (a so-called frand patent). At the time of his "catastrophic effects" comment to Apple, Posner had also told Motorola's lawyers, according to Reuters, "I don't see how you can have injunction against the use of a standard-essential patent."

[DarkFlow]

Motorola sued Apple before Apple sued Motorola. Especially in this specific suit. This suit also has Judge Posner saying he doesn't think Motorola can get an injunction over a FRAND patent, which can be a big blow to Google/Motorola if it strikes a precedent, since a lot of their other cases (such as trying to ban the XBOX 360 unless they pay a 2.35% royalty per device, hinge on FRAND patents).

Then I stand corrected.

[Copernicus]

This might be construed as a loss for Motorola since they brought on the initial lawsuit, but the Judge's commentary is pretty strong.


I suggest everyone ready the summary judgement. These are some of my personal excerpts. It speaks alot more to the current situation on patent litigation.

Totally unrelated, I suggest you stay away from Foss Patents for opinions on the current state of patent and patent litigation.

There is no evidence, and it seems more than unlikely, that occasional partial obstruction would appreciably reduce the value of Motorola’s smartphones to consumers—Apple didn’t even bother to install a notification window on its devices until last year. ... The notion that these minor-seeming infringements have cost Apple market share and consumer goodwill is implausible, has virtually no support in the record, and so fails to indicate that the benefits to Apple from an injunction would exceed the costs to Motorola ... No more can Apple be permitted to force a trial in federal court the sole outcome of which would be an award of $1. ... It would be ridiculous to dismiss a suit for failure to prove damages and allow the plaintiff to refile the suit so that he could have a second chance to prove damages. This case is therefore dismissed with prejudice; a separate order to that effect is being entered today.

It's a pretty entertaining read.
http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/979...kc91re893ri4u5

[Gattsu25]

Good. Yet another bullshit patent case struck down.

Glad Motorola didn't get what they wanted.

[numble]

Posner actually lays out the case against injunctions for FRAND patents in the summary judgment, laying out the law, including prior ITC statements/rulings, and compares the 2.25% royalty asked by Motorola to a "hold-up" request instead of a reasonable royalty request, and says their request was "going for broke."

He does his famous law and economics analysis in explaining how the 2.25 rate was disproportionate to the patent value and how injunctions (bans) are inappropriate for FRAND patents.

“Going for broke” is the inescapable characterization ofMotorola’s damages claim. Motorola claims to be entitled to aminimum royalty of 2.25 percent for a license for the patents inthe portfolio that contains the ‘898. Though it’s the only patentin the portfolio that remains in this suit, Motorola claims to beentitled to damages equal to (or “up to,” or “at least”—it seemsnot to have made up its mind) 40 to 50 percent of 2.25 percent,which would be 0.9 to 1.125 percent of sales of Apple devicesthat infringe the ‘898. ... But the ultimate result would have to be, as a result of all the litigations, that Apple would payMotorola whatever the standards-essential license negotiated fee would be. "We say it’s 2.25 percent, but I'm not going to be able to prove to you that that’s the right number today” (emphasis added). And now it’s too late. ... Motorola counters that Apple’s refusal to negotiate with it af-ter rejecting its initial offer of a 2.25 percent royalty warrants in- junctive relief; by opting not to take a license ex ante, it argues,Apple should lose the FRAND safe harbor. But Apple’s refusalto negotiate for a license (if it did refuse—the parties offer com-peting accounts, unnecessary for me to resolve, of why negotia-tions broke down) was not a defense to a claim by Motorola fora FRAND royalty. If Apple said no to 2.25 percent, it ran the riskof being ordered by a court to pay an equal or even higher roy-alty rate, but that is not the same thing as Motorola’s being ex-cused from no longer having to comply with its FRAND obliga-tions. Motorola agreed to license its standards-essential patentson FRAND terms as a quid pro quo for their being declared es-sential to the standard. It does not claim to have conditioned agreement onprospective licensees’ making counteroffers in license negotia-tions.

[Cipherr]

This might be construed as a loss for Motorola since they brought on the initial lawsuit, but the Judge's commentary is pretty strong. I suggest everyone ready the summary judgement. These are some of my personal excerpts. It speaks alot more to the current situation on patent litigation. Totally unrelated, I suggest you stay away from Foss Patents for opinions on the current state of patent and patent litigation. It's a pretty entertaining read. http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/979...kc91re893ri4u5

Whoa you weren't lying. He dropped some bombs.

Apple in conjuring loss of consumer goodwill and of marketshare tries to make the kind of case for an injunction that was made successfully by the plaintiff in Ltd. Partnership v. Microsoft Corp where the court concluded that “a small company was practicing its patent, only to suffer a loss of market share, brand recognition, and customer goodwill as the result of the defendant’s infringing acts. Such losses may frequently defy attempts at valuation, particularly when the infringing acts significantly change the relevant market, as occurred here.” Apple is not a “small company”; its market capitalization exceeds that of Google and Microsoft combined. To suggest that it has suffered loss of market share, brand recognition, or customer goodwill as a result of Motorola’s alleged infringement of the patent claims still in play in this case is wild conjecture. And until about a week ago Apple had not suggested in this litigation that the losses it allegedly suffered or will suffer from the alleged infringement “defy attempts at valuation. In its latest written and oral submissions Apple attempts what I told its legal team at a pretrial conference I would not let it do in the liability trials then envisaged: turn the case into an Apple versus Motorola popularity contest. Apple wanted me to allow into evidence media reports attesting to what a terrific product the iPhone is. I said I would not permit this because the quality of the iPhone (and of related Apple products, primarily the iPad) and consumers’ regard for it have, so far as the record shows, nothing to do with the handful of patent claims that I had ruled presented triable issues of infringement. Apple’s “feelgood” theory does not indicate that infringement of these claims(if they were infringed) reduced Apple’s sales or market share, or impaired consumer goodwill toward Apple products. Typical is the statement in Apple’s brief of June 18 that “an Apple survey identified watching streaming videos from YouTube among the top ten planned activities for consumers using iPads in the United States.” The ‘263 patent in issue in this litigation is not a claim to a monopoly of streaming video! Apple is complaining that Motorola’s phones as a whole ripped off the iPhone as a whole. But Motorola’s desire to sell products that compete with the iPhone is a separate harm—and a perfectly legal one—from any harm caused by patent infringement

The last bolded piece in particular is amazing. Competing isn't illegal. Stop wasting our time. Loving every judgement so far from Oracles case to this. The courts aren't letting this nonsense get anywhere near out of hand. At this trajectory we arent going to have to worry about injunctions, they will all just be told to suck it up, go backstage and exchange money & licenses and STFU. Thats really all I want. Stop trying to pull shit off the shelves.

I am not persuaded by Apple’s soothing reassurance that a tailored injunction would avert significant hardship to Motorola. Apple ignores the following possibilities: that a non-infringing invent-around cannot be completed, installed, and tested within three months (Motorola might therefore return to court seeking a modification of the injunction); that the cost to Motorola of retooling its production lines to make the redesigned devices would be considerable and a further source of delay in completing the invent-around in three months; that Motorola might have to destroy (if it is not feasible to rebuild)the smartphones that are in its inventory or in the inventories of distributors and can be refitted with the invent-around only at a cost so stiff as to make the devices unsalable at a competitive price; and, perhaps most ominous, that Apple will sue Motorola alleging that the redesigned phones still infringe its patents, just as it is challenging HTC’s design-around of the ‘647 in current proceedings before the International Trade Commission. Also ignored is the harm that an injunction might cause to consumers who can no longer buy preferred products because their sales have been enjoined, and the cost to the judiciary as well as to the parties of administering an injunction—which under the rubric of “public interest” is another factor that re-quires me to weigh in deciding whether to grant injunctive re-lief. The danger that Apple’s goal in obtaining an injunction is harassment of its bitter rival, requiring particularly watchful supervision by the court should it issue the in- junction, is suggested by the fact that while a delayed injunction would in principle render no benefit to Apple besides harming its competitor by forcing it to waste time and money finding anew way of performing the functions now performed in an allegedly infringing manner, an ongoing royalty would yield significant income to Apple—yet which it wants to forgo in favor of imposing costs and litigation burdens on its adversary.

Wow, yeah this guy is on his shit.

[usea]

The last bolded piece in particular is amazing. Competing isn't illegal. Stop wasting our time. Loving every judgement so far from Oracles case to this. The courts aren't letting this nonsense get anywhere near out of hand. At this trajectory we arent going to have to worry about injunctions, they will all just be told to suck it up, go backstage and exchange money & licenses and STFU. Thats really all I want. Stop trying to pull shit off the shelves.

Agreed. It's nice to see some sense once in a while.

[The Faceless Master]

Judge has it down... compete in stores, not in courts.

[SRG01]

Oh, wow. This is a bombshell:

The estimate of Apple’s damages based on HTC’s experience was an afterthought; it occupies only two pages in Napper’s report and says nothing about HTC the company, or about HTC’s cell phones, or about the engineering resources that HTC devoted to modifying its phones in response to the International Trade Commission’s exclusion order, which permitted HTC to import the offending phones for four more months before it had to prove that it had successfully designed around the ‘647. Napper’s report also doesn’t mention that the International Trade Commission’s construction of the patent’s claims differs from my construction of the same claims. So while at the June 7 hearing Apple’s counsel was literally correct in saying that HTC was “faced with the exact same patent,” the statement was misleading because as construed the claims were different and that means that the cost of designing around may have been different, an issue that responsible expert testimony would have to address but that Napper’s report ignores.

In other words, they pretty much "copy/pasted" the ITC ruling into their arguments, even though the claims were different.

[Andrex]

Considering Apple's been copy-pasting Android features for a while, it should come as no surprise.

/Copernicus