Articles Tagged with Motorola Mobility

A federal court dismissed Apple’s fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) patent licensing claims against Motorola Mobility, Inc. this morning.

The case was dismissed ‘with prejudice,’ legalese that means Apple’s claims that the court threw out cannot be raised a second time in a different lawsuit.

A once sentence transcript of minutes from this morning’s 2 hour and 37 minute court hearing is succinct and to the point (read it below):


The exact reasons behind the court’s decision to dismiss this case will hopefully become clear after the court adds a detailed written opinion to the case docket detailing its legal reasoning behind.

Last week this blogger noted that FRAND disputes were being pursued in parallel litigation tracks in the U.S. and abroad.

On October 31, 2012, Apple declared told the court and Motorola Mobility that its competitor’s essential wireless patents in dispute are worth, at most, just one dollar per iPhone.

There were at least six lawyers at this morning’s hearing before U.S. District Judge Barbara B. Crabb in the Western District of Wisconsin — three for Apple and three for Motorola Mobility. Continue reading →

On Monday, Apple filed an Ex parte application for discovery against Motorola Mobility (‘Motorola’) to defend against the Google subsidiary’s patent claims in Germany. Motorola’s claims allege that Apple’s iPhone and iPad wireless devices infringe two of the company’s European patents.

One central Apple legal defense to Motorola’s European patent claims is that the telecommunications hardware maker would not offer it fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (‘FRAND’) licensing terms over the wireless patents in dispute, “in violation of German and European antitrust laws.”

FRAND contract disputes also remain an issue in the companies’ U.S. patent lawsuits. In Wisconsin, for example, Apple declared today that Motorola’s essential wireless patents are worth, at most, only one dollar per iPhone.

Motorola’s European patents at issue involve:

  • EP 1 010 336 (the ‘336 patent) — Method for Performing a Countdown Function During a Mobile-Originated Transfer for a Packet Radio System
  • EP 1 053 613 (the ‘613 patent) — Method and System for Generating a Complex Pseudonoise Sequence for Processing a Code Division Multiple Access Signal

The relief sought by Apple under 28 U.S. § 1782 is commonly used when parties litigating abroad can assist foreign courts with relevant information in dispute, the request is reasonable and narrowly tailored, no foreign prohibition exists against the request, and no foreign prohibition exists against the request. Continue reading →

Enough already! That’s the message from Judge Richard Posner, the federal judge presiding over one of many patent feuds between Apple and Motorola Mobility.

Dagnabbit, Apple, Judge Posner is fed up with your legal team’s motion practice!

“I’ve had my fill of frivolous filings by Apple,” he wrote in a newly released court order (read it below).
Continue reading →

The U.S. International Trade Commission (‘ITC’) issued a preliminary ruling today concluding that Apple iPhone and iPad wireless devices violate Motorola Mobility’s U.S. Patent No. 6,246,697.

Patent holder Motorola Mobility — whose acquisition by Android OS maker Google is still pending — holds this more than 10-year-old wireless method and system patent to reduce background signal noise in wireless transmissions.

The IP litigation between Apple and Motorola, however, is far from over.
Continue reading →

Don’t the patent wars involving Apple, Samsung, and Motorola Mobility feel like they’re being waged almost daily?

Motorola Mobility filed the latest salvo with a new patent infringement lawsuit against Apple in a Florida federal court (see below).

The new case accuses Apple of, among other things, violating its patent for a "Receiver Having Concealed External Antenna." Motorola Mobility claims that it’s got a lock on all mobile phones with hidden antennas.

Really? Have they sued every mobile device manufacturer over this claim? When was the last time that you actually saw a mobile phone with a visible antenna attached?
Continue reading →