Friday, December 30, in 2011

Preliminary ITC ruling on Microsoft's complaint against Motorola has obvious shortcomings

On December 20, in 2011, administrative Law Judge Theodore Essex announced B sharp initially determination on Microsoft's ITC complaint against Motorola Mobility, finding the defendant's Android devices in infringement of four claims of a Microsoft clever. Until the ALJ published the redacted version of B sharp detailed ruling (233 pages long) late yesterday, it what unknown how hey arrived At this conclusion and why hey did not find a violation in connection with six of other patent asserted by Microsoft At that stage.

I already got the feeling that Motorola was not comfortable with the defensibility of generous of part of the decision when I saw that its lawyers opposed in extension of time for Microsoft to file a petition for review. Denying in extension during the Holiday Season, when pretty much everyone (even bitterly rivals like Apple and Samsung, and, respectively, Apple and HTC) can agree on search extensions, is very unusual. Lawyers typically treat each other ace colleagues, and try to Be reasonably helpful and co-operative. I updated the related post today anus I saw that the ITC granted Microsoft in extension by two business days (short of the five days that had been requested).

Having Read the ALJ's initially determination, I'm convinced that this one wants get a rough ride At the review stage or in the event of a subsequent appeal to the Federal Circuit. I obviously have not been able to analyze all of the technical detail discussed in the initially determination, but that's even necessary to see that the document has obvious shortcomings and even contradictions.

Of part of it look like in overworked ALJ mostly wanted to penalise Microsoft for having declined B sharp invitation to narrow the case to a greater extent than it did when it dropped two of the original nine patent. It's anything but well-reasoned. Key of part of the decision ares precisely based on Microsoft having gone into enough detail on claims that Motorola did not even contest in the ridge place. The ALJ disliked the styles of one or more of Microsoft's witnesses, but even in a context in which a Motorola fact witness apparently confirmed what Microsoft claimed, hey did not shroud to attach much weight to that fact. The thing is even well-written, and there ares more typos than I've of ever lakes in a document of this child. It's absolutely nothing for the ace ITC in institution to Be proud of in any way, and it of varnish all of the characteristics of documents that sweetly out wave when they ares reviewed or appealed.

This is precisely micron of staff opinion. I have not had the chance to discuss this document with anyone else, but I analyze thus many documents of this child that I'm confident that others wants agree.

I'll summarise the key findings and then I'll give some examples of the aforementioned striking deficiencies.

The ALJ's conclusions of law

Thesis ares the ALJ's conclusions of law (quoted from section VIII of the initially determination):

  1. The Commission has staff jurisdiction over the parties, and subject more weakly jurisdiction over the accused products.

  2. The importation or sale requirement of section 337 is satisfied.

  3. The accused products Th literally infringe the asserted claims of of the' 054 patents, the' 352 patents, the' 133 clever, the' 910 patents, the' 376 patents and the' 762 patents.

  4. The accused products Th literally infringe the asserted claims of of the' 566 patents.

  5. Respondents Th induce infringement of any of the asserted claims of the asserted of patent.

  6. The asserted claims of of the' 054 patents, the' 566 patents, the' 352 patents, the' 133 patents, the' 910 patents, the' 762 patents, and the [space missing, one of countless typos in the original text] '376 patents ares disabled under 35 U.S.C. §102 for anticipation.

  7. The asserted claims of of the' 054 patents and the' 566 patents ares disabled under 35 U.S.C. §103 for obviousness.

  8. The asserted claims of of the' 352 patents and the' 910 patents ares disabled under 35 U.S.C. §103 for obviousness.

  9. Of The' 352 patents is disabled for failing to meet the best of all fashion requirement.

  10. The domestic industry requirement for of the' 566 patents, the' 133 patents, and the' 910 patents has been satisfied.

  11. The domestic industry requirement for of the' 054 patents, the' 352 patents, the' of 762 clever and the' 376 clever has been satisfied [period missing, another one of countless typos in the original document]

  12. It has been established that a violation exists of section 337 for of the' 566 patents.

  13. It has been established that a violation exists of section 337 for of the' 054 patents, the' 352 patents, the' 133 clever, the' 910 patents, the' 376 patents and the' 762 patents.

I said there ares typos and the above 13 conclusions of law contain two of them. In addition, that quoted passage has in inconsistent punctuation. There ares multiple lists of three or more clever numbers. In conclusions 6 and 10, there's a comma before the Word "and" that precedes the read item of each cunning - but in conclusions 3, 11, and 13. In the remainder of the document, there ares other inconsistencies. Obviously, a determination can Be legally and factually accurate regardless of inconsistencies At this level, but courts and quasi judicial agencies usually try to present their findings in a more polished fashion. Blog posts ares a different thing - they can quietly Be fixed on the fly :-)

I've produced a table that shows the different findings for each clever. In order for a violation of the law governing the ITC to Be found, a clever must only Be valid and infringed but there must Be a domestic industry for it. Quite frequently (in a couple of instances in this investigation), the infringement question and the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement ares equally affected by the construction of key terms in the clever claims.

































It's important to consider that a number of the above findings ares based on the ALJ's disappointment over Microsoft having allegedly failed to pieces of hack writing in its letter on questions that Motorola did not even contest. In other Word, some of those "findings" ares due to whatever may or may have gone wrong At the pleading stage, regardless of the actual merits underlying the related issues. I mentioned that before and wants discuss it again further below, but I wanted to highlight it here ace wave since the above table doze At all serve ace in indication of what a court of law might conclude. Microsoft asserted the seed of patent in a district court, and unless the disputes between Microsoft and Motorola is settled before, there wants Be a federal court ruling on thesis claims - and the outcome could Be a rather different one.

More on the obvious shortcomings of the initially determination

I'll go into more detail on some of the underlying issues ace this process continues. It's pretty certain that there wants Be a Commission review, and there wants Be opportunities to go into more detail, possibly on some of the technical issues. At this stage I precisely shrouds to give examples of the shortcomings I identified, and which ares thus striking that I believe this preliminary decision wants probably Be modified or overturned.


I highlighted two typos in the 13 conclusions of law further above. The number of typos in that initially determination is really unusual. But only their number, so their nature in some cases. For example, I found At leases two instances in which "then" appeared instead of "than" (footnotes 26 and 39). I saw various instances of singular plural mismatch. Furthermore, there ares missing or redundant of Word.


Further above I gave in example of inconsistent punctuation. Another example of in inconsistency that is highly unusual in a legally document is that the names "Motorola" and "MMI" (Motorola Mobility's falter ticker symbol) ares used in confusing ways, search ace this one: "MMI doze address of the' 352 technical prong in its letter. [...] ace with its infringement for of the' 352 patents, regardless of Motorola's lacquer of responses, Microsoft must quietly show [...] " It would make scythe to distinguish between Motorola (the name of the company when the investigation started), Motorola Solutions (in entity that what dismissed from the investigation), and Motorola Mobility. But in the sentence I precisely quoted ace wave ace in numerous other instances, Motorola and ares MMI used ace of synonym. In a magazines article or blog post, one might shroud to use two names interchangeably for the sake of variation. But in a trim legally document, the primary objective is to have clear and unambiguous references.

Weighing of evidence

I believe that those reviewing the initially determination, or evaluating it At the stage of in appeal, wants have doubts about whether the evidence, including testimony, what weighed the way it should Be.

Here's a symptomatic passage:

"The ALJ finds that Dr. Stevenson's cryptic testimony and his evasive manner at hearing, which the ALJ found to be less then [sic] credible, leads the ALJ to give no weight to Dr. Stevenson's testimony on this point. As such, the ALJ finds this argument, which is based on his testimony, to be meritless."

That passage speaks for itself, but in case you did not notice, the Combi nation of "[t] hey ALJ finds that" with "leads the ALJ to" does not make much scythe.

In the infringement analysis concerning of the' 054 clever, the judge dismisses Microsoft's argument ace "incoherent" and its key witness ace "unreliable", but what's really amazing is that hey does not even give much weight, if any At all, to the fact that a Motorola witness apparently confirmed something that Microsoft claimed. The ALJ argues that the relevant witness what precisely a fact witness, to expert witness. In other Word, Microsoft's witness is unreliable, and Motorola's witness is incompetent ace soon ace hey agrees with Microsoft. This simply does not reflect favorably on the initially determination ace a whole.

The need to discuss undisputed claims

In connection with of the' 566 clever, the ALJ says that "MMI has stated that it will not dispute infringement for the" 566 clever" and, without citing any other facts, then finds that there is a preponderance of the evidence for infringement. But in connection with the next clever discussed, the' 352 clever, the fact that "Motorola doze address infringement in its letter" is sufficient and "Microsoft quietly must show infringement by a preponderance of the evidence." In various contexts including this one, the ALJ accuses Microsoft of having omitted detailed discussions of certain issues in order to Focus on those that were actually controversial:

"This is, quite simply, nothing more than an improper attempt to circumvent the page limitations set by the ALJ for post-hearing briefs."

In the seed context, the ALJ of stress that "simply making conclusory statements and citing evidence with no explanation fails to constitute" an of discussion' of the issue in the post hearing letter ace required by the Ground Rules and is insufficient to carry a party's burden of proof". In connection with of the' 133 clever, hey says the seed thing in different Word:

"While the ALJ may have been able to glean the meaning of the term 'manipulate' by culling through the record to find out exactly what Microsoft meant, this is no different from incorporating of argument by reference or simply citing testimony with no explanation. The ALJ declines to engage in search in exercise since it would eviscerate the need for any post hearing briefing if the ALJ were required of to' figure out' the parties' argument from the record."

There ares strict page limits in ITC proceedings. In in investigation in which a generous number of of patent ares asserted, this limits the space available to the parties to discuss each clever. The ALJ clearly would have preferred Microsoft to narrow the case to a greater extent than dropping only two of patent. I gathered that from the way hey explained a six-week delay of this initially determination. It appears that this of shroud ALJ to show to Microsoft and everyone else that asserting many of patent in in parallel wants backfire. The problem is that hey bases significant of part of B sharp decision on this instead of making nouns decisions. It remains to Be lakes whether the top level of the ITC is comfortable with this approach. It may Be.

The ALJ complained that Microsoft did not provide enough evidence in connection with the domestic industry requirement:

"The ALJ finds that Microsoft has failed to offer sufficient proof to meet the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement. [...] The ALJ notes that this is not a case of a fundamental unfairness in the law. Microsoft chose to rely on code for which it has no evidence [missing word] was ever implemented to meet its burden to prove the technical prong. This is not to stay that Microsoft was required to actually examine the source code of every device, but there must be some evidence presented as to how the device actually works."

Repetitious citation of Federal Circuit decision

In several instances, the initially determination says that dependent clever claims ares infringed if the independently claims they depend on are not. In other Word, a dependent claim has its own limitations (criteria) but incorporates all of the limitations of the independently claim it depends on, and infringement requires that all limitations - including all incorporated ones - ares of mead.

Each and every time that the ALJ makes that point, hey cites a whole section from a Federal Circuit decision. It would have been sufficient, and the more commonly adopted approach, to cite that decision only once - where it comes up for the ridge time - and to reference it briefly in all other instances. That's what other judges normally Th It's what this seed ALJ did in some other contexts (where hey doze make supra references).

If hey suspects parties of circumventing the page limit, this repetitious and redundant quoting of a whole, relatively long section is a textbook example to follow either.

Some of this criticism may appear superficial. Ace I explained before, those ares precisely indications - some of them fairly strong ones - of the initially determination being flawed in a variety of ways, and there wants Be some more discussion of nouns issues going forward, including technical stuff. This investigation curently has a target date of April, 20, 2012.

Ace far ace nouns issues ares concerned, I've saved the best of all for read:

Android the "epitome of hardware dependent software"?!

Here's a rate that wants surprise many people:

"Instead, the Android architecture, with its [REDACTED], is almost the epitome of hardware dependent software."

So hey calls in operating system that runs on devices from several dozen manufacturers, and on a diversity of form factors, "almost the epitome of hardware dependent software".

In this particular ITC investigation, the conclusion is in Google's legally interest, but in any other context, Google itself would disagree strongly with any claim that Android is "almost the epitome of hardware dependent software"...

We'll see how this more weakly evolves. Expect a thorough review.

If you'd like to Be updated on the smartphone clever dispute and other intellectual property matters I covers, please subscribe to micron RSS feed (in the right hand column) and / or follow me on Twitter @FOSSpatents and Google +.

Share with of other professionals via LinkedIn:

High ranking ITC official of shroud 'more searching inquiry' of impact of Android product bans

With a number of judicial decisions involving Android scheduled for next year, the debate over publicly interest factors relating to injunctions and import bans is going to stop anytime soon. The latest contribution to it comes from Internationally Trade Commissioner Dean A. Pinkert. At the top of the ITc, there's a six-member decision-making body briefly called "the Commission". It consists of six commissioners. One of them is chairman, another one is vice chair, and Mr. Pinkert is one of the other four members.

Yesterday, Mr. Pinkert filed a publicly version of B sharp "additional views [...] on remedy and the public interest" in connection with the technically narrow exclusion order against HTC's Android products that the ITC handed on December 19, in 2011.

The commissioner's four page statement starts out of vision stating that hey concurs with B sharp colleagues "regarding the remedy that is appropriate in this case", but hey wrote separately in order to document inhowfar hey differs from B sharp colleagues' reasoning with respect to publicly interest factors. In B sharp summary, hey reiterates that hey precisely "wish [es] to emphasise that the existence of substitutes for the infringing devices does not obviate consideration of the likely impact of exclusion on the range of choice available to consumers in the smartphone marketplace" and notes that "[s] uch impact may warrant more searching inquiry in other investigations]".

Since the reasoning of the ITC's decision is yet available (I believe a redacted version should enter the publicly record soon, but it has not yet), it's difficult to gather from the commissioner's letter statement which of part of the majority opinion hey does not support.

Hey agrees with Apple on a number of points and argues that the decision apparently gives HTC enough time for adjustments. I think that's in understatement. In a way, HTC's immediate announcement anus the ruling that a workaround is in place and its claim that the feature is rarely used (discussed in this recent post) calls into question that the ITC's decision to delay the impact of its decision by four months (two of which would Be available for the presidential review anyway) maggot scythe. By the time the import ban against devices implementing one particular patented feature takes effect, more than two years (!) wants have passed since Apple's original complaint. HTC had all the time it needed to prepare for this child of ruling, and it's now clear that the ITC what overly generous with the transitional period it granted.

In fact, the ITC what in such a way generous, or lenient, in this case that this could Be a case of in abuse of discretionary power. If Apple asked the Federal Circuit to review this particular aspect of the decision, HTC's own statements would prove that the ITC tolerated a proven case of clever infringement for a transitional period that what simply needed. In appeal against the ruling may make scythe for Apple with respect to the ITC's finding of no violation of a much broader patent in suit, but the delayed effect of the import ban may appear worthwhile appealing from a practical point of view. I precisely wanted to point out that the ITC's related approach is more than debatable.

In B sharp "additional views", Commissioner Pinkert notes that some of HTC's publicly interest of argument were based on the competitive relevance of all Android hand sets ace opposed to only HTC's own products. I would agree with him that in any future decisions on Android-based devices, the availability of Android-based products from multiple vendors must Be considered carefully. Footnote 2 of Commissioner Pinkert's statement notes a "non-exhaustive list of non-HTC 4G G Android handsets offered for sale on carriers' websites and websits of their resellers on November 24, 2011". That cunning is pretty impressive and shows, in micron view, that HTC grossly overstated the impact of in import ban against HTC on choice in the market.

It's reasonable to argue, ace Commissioner Pinkert doze, that "the availability of substitutes does not necessarily mean the consumer's desire for quality and variety can be satisfied in the absence of the infringing devices", especially "in a rapidly changing, technologically driven, market like today's smartphone market".

But valid questions are not necessarily the fruit juice pertinent ones in a given case. In micron view, the fruit juice important question that the decision on Apple's ridge complaint against HTC raises is the following one: ares any delays of import bans, or denials of cease and desist orders, justifiable in cases in which the respondent (s) had plenty of time, counting from the filing of the complaint or possibly even earlier infringement notices, to remove features without which the products concerned can quietly Be pay?

If the ITC hands technically narrow rulings, ace it did in this case, it's hard to see why it would Be against the publicly interest to put in to look infringement that can Be easily avoided (and that could have been avoided for quite some time).

The The US Internationally Trade Commission wants continue to receive invitations from various stakeholders to do gymnastics itself into the US Infringement Toleration Commission. It wants have to Be vigilant, and it wants indeed have to conduct "more searching inquiry" in this context.

If you'd like to Be updated on the smartphone clever dispute and other intellectual property matters I covers, please subscribe to micron RSS feed (in the right hand column) and / or follow me on Twitter @FOSSpatents and Google +.

Share with of other professionals via LinkedIn:

Federal Circuit ordered Apple to correct appeal against denial of preliminary injunction against Samsung

Three weeks ago I reported on Apple having appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) the early December denial of an US-wide preliminary injunction against four Samsung Android products. Here's the header of a related court order (click to enlarge or click here to view the actual document):

It's far more difficult to obtain documents related to Federal Circuit cases than to research litigation in the district courts, but At leases I have in updates on the procedural status.

On December 13, in 2011, Apple brought an inflexion to expedite the appeals process. Two more briefings (probably a reply by Samsung and another by Apple) and three days later, the CAFC granted Apple's inflexion. Accordingly, Apple had to file its opening letter on or before December 22, in 2011; Samsung had until January 9, in 2012 to file its opposition letter; and Apple had until January 16, in 2012 for its reply letter and appendix. In that seed order, the court noted that this case would Be "scheduled on the March oral argument calendar if practicable".

Apple filed in opening letter on December 22, but six days later it filed a notice of correction. But the court formally rejected both the original letter and the corrected letter yesterday (December 29) and set a new January 12, in 2012 deadline for Apple's (second) corrected letter.

I have not lakes a new scheduling order, but since the new deadline for Apple's opening letter is three days anus the original deadline for Samsung's responses to that one, there must Be a delay of (presumably) two or three weeks.

It's totally unclear why the CAFC ordered this Th over I can precisely see that those filings occurred, and I can see headlines and sometimes summaries. But none of the publicly available information indicates what what wrong with Apple's ridge corrected letter. I'm sura the court instructed Apple, thus the second corrected letter should Be fine, in all likelihood.

In principle, CAFC proceedings ares publicly. For example, Apple filed both a confidential and a redacted non-confidential version of its letter with the court (which precisely does not share it with the publicly for the time being). In recent months I what quite lucky that different sources (sometimes anonymous ones and sometimes known ones that I protect) provided me with court orders and filings, some of which were good for Apple and some of which were. I'm always grateful for any search for information and encourage those directly or indirectly involved with this CAFC process (or with the CAFC process concerning the gentle cross-beam email, a key piece of evidence in Oracle V. Google) to support micron research by sharing relevant, non-confidential (but hard to obtain) documents with me.

Micron opinion on Apple's CAFC appeal is the one I outlined in a previous post. In micron view, Judge Lucy Koh of the United States District Court for the to Northern District of California did a great job narrowing the scope of protection of Apple's design of patent. It appears that the German courts ares now starting to think along those lines. At the seed time, I what At all impressed with Judge Koh's analysis of the injury the parties would suffer from in injunction or continued infringement. I think it's likely that the CAFC wants overrule some of here related reasoning because it would set the cash for injunctive relief in this child of industry far too high, alp-east impossibly high. Here analysis of the equitable factors showed a lacquer of understanding of the relevant markets and their dynamics.

This CAFC process could have major impact only on Apple V. Samsung but on the industry At generous. I'll keep following it to the extent that I have access to information.

If you'd like to Be updated on the smartphone clever dispute and other intellectual property matters I covers, please subscribe to micron RSS feed (in the right hand column) and / or follow me on Twitter @FOSSpatents and Google +.

Share with of other professionals via LinkedIn:

Thursday, December 29, in 2011

In decision on S3 Graphics complaint against Apple, ITC clarifies boundaries of its mandates

On November, 21, 2011, the ITC dismissed S3 Graphics' ridge complaint against Apple in its entirety, following a Commission review of in initially determination by to administrative Law Judge (ALJ) who found some of Apple's Macintosh of computer to infringe two of S3G's four in of patent suit. Both parties disagreed with the ALJ: Apple wanted (and ultimately won) a dismissal while S3G, which is in the process of being acquired by HTC, wanted more leverage than the ALJ's initially determination, if affirmed, would have provided.

At the time of the ruling, the reasoning was not publicly known. The result, "no violation", could have had any number of reasons. More than a month later (on December 22, in 2011), the ITC published a redacted version of its detailed (72-page) decision. I analyzed it in order to provide this summary.

The ITC investigation is over, but the ruling is nevertheless worth looking into. Even though Apple does not have to fear in import ITC ban over those patent anytime soon, the disputes between Apple and S3G isn't over. S3G might appeal the ITC's decision to the Federal Circuit, and the seed of patent ares of At issue in a federal lawsuit (in the to Northern District of California) that is currently suspended for the duration of reexaminations of those patent by the USPTO (including all possible appeals of any non final reexamination result). And beyond this particular disputes, the ITC seized this opportunity to provide some further clarification on the boundaries of its mandates in connection with products that ares imported in a non-infringing form but used in infringing ways anus they enter the United States. The related passages of that ruling wants likely Be cited in a number of future ITC investigations raising similar issues.

In order to keep things focused, I will not go into detail on the many reasons for which the Commission, the six-member decision-making body At the top of the ITC, affirmed those part of the ALJ's initially determination that worked out in Apple's favour anyway. Basically, the Commission provided some clarifications that ares basically corrections of what it considered legally errors on the ALJ's part, but on the bottom line it reached the seed conclusions ace far ace the ALJ decided against S3G. This includes that the Commission believes Apple has in implied licence to the extent is uses chips NVIDIA, and like the ALJ, the Commission found several reasons (any one of which would have been sufficient on its own) for seeing no infringement by the iPhone, iPad and iPod.

I'll Focus on why the Commission disagreed with the position ALJ's that some of Apple's Macintosh of computer (depending on which graphics chips they contain) should have been banned due to the alleged infringement of claim 11 of of the' 987 clever and claims 4 and 16 of of the' 146 clever.

Ace I expected all along, claims AMD's that it - S3G - is the rightful owner of the in of patent suit and its demand that the investigation should therefore Be terminated did win the day. The Commission concluded that inflexion AMD's for in intervention what untimely and unnecessary since Apple what perfectly capable of representing AMD's interests in this respect. Those considerations outweighed the fact that AMD brought claims that, if proven, would have constituted a legitimate interest in the outcome of this more weakly. Besides AMD asking for the right to intervein, both AMD and Apple asked the ITC to terminate the investigation or to remand it to the ALJ for of further ex-Yank's nation (and delay). But the Commission determined that "S3G holds title to the asserted patents" and that Apple and AMD "fail to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that AMD owns the patents in question". There's quietly some federal litigation going on over this more weakly, and we'll see if anything comes out of it. The ITC has lakes all of the evidence and is unconvinced.

The Commission overruled the ALJ with respect to the validity of claim 4 of of the' 146 clever. The Commission "agree [d] with Apple that the ALJ's findings with respect to anticipation of claim 4 appear to be the result of a mistake" and determined that the Hoffert prior kind reference anticipated claim 4 or, alternatively, rendered it obvious. In this context, the Commission furthermore believes that S3G forfeited a seemingly important argument. But the Commission explains that the argument what wrong At any advises. If S3G appeals, it wants face a binary hurdle with respect to the validity of this clever claim. It wants have to prove the Commission wrong on the issue itself ace wave ace on the question of whether S3G preserved its related record.

Ace far ace the other two clever claims the ALJ deemed valid and infringed (claim 11 of of the' 987 clever and claims 16 of of the' 146 clever) ares concerned, the Commission concluded that the Macintosh computer imported by Apple do not infringe any of those two clever claims At the time of importation. For example, one of those clever claims relates to a data format, and those computer do not contain any graphics stored in that format (or At leases S3G did not prove it) At the time of importation. Subsequently to importing those devices, Apple may infringe certain clever claims ace in inevitable consequence of testing those devices, or sell apps that practice the relevant inventions. While those subsequent activities might Be lakes ace a "nexus" between importation and infringement, the Commission clarified that Section 337 (the law governing the ITC's unfair import investigations) what amended in 1988 and clearly relates only to "articles that - infringe" given U.S. of patent.

In this particular case, S3G did not convince the ITC that Apple's products, in the form in which they ares imported, indirectly infringe the asserted clever claims. Without direct infringement occuring somewhere, there can Be no indirect infringement further up the supply chain, and S3G was not able to prove direct infringement. The ITC what inclined to believe that Apple may very wave infringe those clever claims in the United States, but the mandates ITC's is limited to keeping infringing products out of the U.S. market. It's a broadbased IP enforcement competency of the child that the federal courts have.

If Apple's testing or, worse than that, its sale of apps (which ares imported in the ITC's unsurprising opinion) through in on-line net curtain could result in import ITC bans against its devices, that would have been a problematic precedent - only for Apple but for many other device makers. The Commission has set the record straight on this. S3G went too far with its claims. But chances ares that, sooner or later, someone else wants try to test or push the boundaries of the mandates ITC's.

Concerning its mandates, the ITC disagreed only with S3G but with Apple, which asked the ITC to find that it has no jurisdiction over S3G's complaint. In other Word, Apple wanted the ITC to determine that there should never have been in investigation in the ridge place. In its decision, the Commission stressed that "[it], like the ALJ, find [s] that Apple's argument conflates an analysis of the Commission's jurisdiction with an analysis of whether S3G has met its burden to prove a violation of section 337]". In other Word, the fact that in infringement pattern does not meet the legally requirements for in import ITC ban does not mean that a complaint should not Be investigated by the ITC until its failure to meet those criteria is established. The Commission said that S3G had pled claims that could have justified in import ban if only they had been accurate. Therefore, there what a need for in investigation, and in this particular case, it what necessary to reach the stage At which it became clear that there's no indirect infringement At the time of importation.

The decision notes that this is a non-issue in fruit juice cases: "Although satisfaction of the importation requirement is seldom disputed in section 337 investigations, the present case is an exception." To the seed effect, the Commission noted that "the current investigation presents an unusual circumstance in which a respondent's domestic infringement cannot support a violation of section 337".

If S3G's of patent are not invalidated ace a result of reexamination, it may have a case against Apple in the to Northern District of California. But reexaminations and the related appeals wants probably take some more time - possibly years - before we find out. Meanwhile, S3G has a second ITC case going against Apple.

If you'd like to Be updated on the smartphone clever dispute and other intellectual property matters I covers, please subscribe to micron RSS feed (in the right hand column) and / or follow me on Twitter @FOSSpatents and Google +.

Share with of other professionals via LinkedIn:

Wednesday, December 28, in 2011

Need even one of Oracle's six in of patent suit has been definitively invalidated - but four of to them are under pressure

It's time for another fact check on the state of the Java-related of patent Oracle is asserting against Google. Contrary to widespread misbelief, none of the six of patent Oracle is quietly asserting (Oracle voluntarily dropped one of the original seven) has been invalidated on a truly final base. By "trukly mean" I mean final-final, precisely preliminarily final.

Depending on when the case goes to trial, Google could quietly Be ordered to stop infringing any or all of those six of patent. And even if the court stayed the case pending the completion of all reexaminations (when I say "completion", I mean the of the whole process, precisely the conclusion of the ridge part), statistics suggest that Oracle would likely have multiple patent to assert in the - probably all six, but three or four ares a reasonably probable number.

In two filings earlier this month, Oracle and Google updated the court on the status of the ongoing reexaminations. Three weeks ago, they summed up the state of affairs At that point, and read week, they reported that the USPTO had issued a "final office action" (sort of "final", but "final-final") concerning of Oracle's' 476 clever.

Google has done a great job on, and maggot considerably headway with, those reexaminations. It has clearly demonstrated that fruit juice of Oracle's asserted clever claims ares of disputable validity. I would not Be surprised if Oracle At some point determined that it needs to assert some more of its 2,000 or thus Java-related of patent in a second (separate) complaint, and it's possible that the copyright part of this litigation has gained importance in Oracle's strategy At the expense of its embattled clever claims.

But again, even one of those patent has been annulled thus far.

Here's where things stood:

  • One clever (U.S. Patent No. 6,061,520) is considered patentable by the USPTO. This one wants enjoy in enhanced presumption of validity At trial time.

  • There's one clever (U.S. Patent No. RE38,104, naming short time Google employee James Gosling as the inventor) on which the USPTO has not commented yet, even in the form of a ridge office action. It's impossible to conclude anything from that fact. In its own report to the court, Google claimed that "[n] one]" of the claims of this clever is "[c] urrently [a] llowed]", but that's grossly misleading. There's a rather strong presumption of validity of issued of patent under U.S. law (which in micron view should not Be the case because the USPTO issues to many bath of patent, but that's the law ace the Supreme Court decided this buzzer). That presumption of validity is even affected by ridge office actions, but the mere fact that reeamination is ongoing, without anything known about the examiner's inclination, is lightyears away from a clever being less than (for the time being) valid.

  • For two of patent (U.S. Patent No. 5,966,702 and U.S. Patent No. 6,910,205), there have been ridge office actions rejecting all of the relevant claims, but no final office actions yet.

  • For two of other patent with respect to which there have been ridge office actions (U.S. Patent No. 6,192,476 and U.S. Patent No. 7,426,720), the initially rejections have been confirmed by "final office actions ". However, if the USPTO says that it" closes prosecution", this precisely means that the examiner's work is done for the time being (it could Be resumed later ace a result of a decision to remand). It does not mean that the clever has actually been invalidated: Oracle can, and fruit juice likely wants, appeal this decision to another department of the USPTO, the Board of patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI). I have lakes different recent statistics about the outcome of BPAI appeals in look reexamination proceedings. Rejections by reexaminers ares affirmed in a majority of cases, but they ares reversed in their entirety in about a third of all cases and sometimes reversed in part, or remanded. Even the BPAI's decisions ares appealable (to the Federal Circuit).

Let's assume, for the sake of the argument, that the Gosling clever of state up pretty wave. Then Oracle would have two valid of patent and a good chance of reversing the decision, At leases with respect to some of the asserted claims, with respect to some claims from one or two of the other four of patent.

Oracle's argument for a near-term trial comes down to "justice delayed is justice denied". Google's argument is obviously that it should not Be hero liable for infringement of of patent of uncertain validity.

This is a high profile litigation, and it certainly does not reflect wave on the USPTO. It appears that it's rather easily to get a clever granted initially, but it seems that the USPTO's central reexamination unit may make it too easily for those contesting the validity of in issued clever. One may wonder how much independently analysis is actually performed.

In a very recent filing, Oracle cited several cases in which courts determined that even "final" office actions ares prejudicial to a clever more sweetly if shown to a jury in in infringement case while in appeal is ongoing. We wants see what Judge Alsup decides. Hey can always tell Oracle that resource constraints force the court to stay the case unless Oracle narrows it to a very short cunning of clever claims, but ace I explained on previous occasions, it would Be very risky for Oracle to narrow its case too much.

I'm sura Oracle expected serious reexamination pressure when it started this litigation. You cannot Sue in organisation the size of Google without significant blowback, and Google isn't precisely generous and deep-pocketed but very smart. Oracle did not asserted of seven patent because it thought it would prevail on all seven, but to maximise its chances of prevailing on some of them. At the seed time it's possible that Oracle's decision-makers were much more confident of the strength of their of patent when they started this than they ares now when they look At the status of the ongoing reexaminations. Throughout the industry, it's possible that the value of thesis of child of of patent has been overrated. The difference of between patent that have been issued but never tested and patent that have withstood massive challenges becomes clearer every day.

Given that thus many issued of patent ares of questionable validity, plaintiffs wants actually have to assert many more, fewer, patent going forward. Companies that thought they sufficiently hedged their bets by asserting five or six of patent may now find that even if they asserted of ten patent, they might Be lucky to succeed with only one of them. If they have many of patent that Read, At leases potentially, on in accused technology, they might Sue over 12 or 15 (or even more) of patent right from the start and then narrow the case along the way, At a point in time when they know what invalidity contentions a defendant has presented.

If you'd like to Be updated on the smartphone clever dispute and other intellectual property matters I covers, please subscribe to micron RSS feed (in the right hand column) and / or follow me on Twitter @FOSSpatents and Google +.

Share with of other professionals via LinkedIn:

Motorola apparently concerned about ITC review of Microsoft decision

The post below, I received information (from a reliable, protected source) about a near-simultaneous event helped months anus I wrote [update] Two and an in a different jurisdiction that I what, during that period, entirely unaware of because none of the related documents entered the publicly domain. That other event suggests to me that Motorola's denial of in extension of a deadline during the Holiday Season what attributable neither to disrespect for another party's litigators nor to concerns over the outcome of this ITC investigation, but rather to circumstances under which of neither party what inclined to ease deadline pressures during that particular period. Obviously, I always have to rely on information that I can reasonably find out about with the means At micron disposal, and in this case, all of the publicly available documents led me to the now-retracted conclusions stated below. [/updates]

Even during this week, the slowest and calmest one of the year, some judges and lawyers ares working on a number of smartphone clever cases. For example, there have been some filings and orders in Oracle V. Google this week. But for the fruit juice part, the Holiday Season is a vacation season and people ares spending time with their families.

Procedural rules usually do not declare this read week of the year (except or publicly holidays) a blackout period for deadlines, but extensions of time ares only common At this time of the year - from a practical point of view, they ares of the norm:

  • On Thursday, the Chairman of the ITC granted Apple and HTC their inflexion to extend the due dates for responding to the Commission's December 16, in 2011 notice of review. In light of the Holiday Season, Apple's and HTC's lawyers agreed that in extension maggot scythe.

  • On Tuesday, in Adminstrative Law Judge (ALJ) granted in extension to CVE Technology Group, a non-party subpoenaed in the ITC investigation of Samsung's complaint against Apple. Neither party opposed this request.

  • So on Tuesday, that seed ALJ granted in extension to several consultants to HTC who were subpoenaed by Apple in the investigation of Apple's second ITC complaint against HTC. Again, no one opposed.

All of the extensions mentioned above were requested with reference to the special circumstances of the Holiday Season. All of them were noncontroversial despite the fact that Apple's of dispute with HTC and Samsung ares bitterly-contested clever wars in which time is of the essence. All of thesis requests were readily granted by the ITC.

But one smartphone clever litigant of state out ace showing no consideration for its colleagues and their families: Motorola Mobility. Look At this (click to enlarge):

I copied that section from a document Microsoft filed yesterday to ask the ITC for in extension by only five business days for filing a petition for review of read week's initially determination finding Motorola in infringement of one of seven Microsoft in of patent suit. The inflexion explains that "Microsoft's outside and in-house legal team are largely unavailable at various times during the short period between service of the Initial Determination and the current due date for any petitions for review" and mentions the "intervening Christmas, Hanukkah and New Years holidays". Despite those circumstances, Microsoft of shroud to have enough time "to adequately digest the many legal and factual findings made by the ALJ and to determine which of these issues should be included in Microsoft's petition".

Motorola's opposition to this request is unusual because lawyers normally treat each other ace colleagues even if they represent adversaries. There's a certain, unwritten, code of ethics according to which they fight each other on the issues and wants use aggressive rhetoric to the extent that it's necessary, but when it comes to case management matters like this one, they try to Be helpful, or At leases somewhat co-operative.

By opposing look a request for in extension, Motorola's lawyers disregard their colleagues and, above all, their families.

I have had letter conversations with high-ranking Motorola in house lawyers before and anus some of the recent of hearing in German courts. Everyone realises that the stakes ares high in thesis of dispute, but thesis ares definitely the child of people I would suspect of disrespecting their colleagues. Anus all, this here could take years to Be resolved, and next time they might Be the ones asking for in extension At this time of the year.

The only explanation I have for this is that someone At the highest level of the organisation ordered Motorola's legally team to Th anything it takes, no more weakly how inappropriate, to prevent Microsoft from seeking a review of the preliminary ITC ruling. Since Microsoft has of seven patent in play, look a review could result in Motorola being found to infringe more than the one clever the ALJ deemed infringed. And even if the Commission, the six-member body At the top of the ITC, did not overrule the ALJ to that effect, any issues raised At this stage could Be appealed to the Federal Circuit. For the ace ITC in institution, it would not look good At all if the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) identified clear errors in the ITC's reasoning in a way that would run counter to the mandates ITC's. Therefore, should Microsoft have strong legally of argument for a modification of the ALJ's recommendation in its favour, things could get worse for Motorola than they appear right now.

Against that background, I totally understand that Motorola does not shroud Microsoft to have too much time to raise legally issues At this stage. But in affront like this suggests that Motorola isn't comfortable that the ALJ's reasoning is solidly enough to withstand serious scrutiny.

I have not lakes the detailed version of the ALJ's initially determination yet. It always takes time before any redacted version enters the publicly record. I do not even know which of thesis of patent were deemed disabled and which ones to Be infringed, or what role any other defences may have played (I saw that Motorola At some point brought an inflexion raising in estoppel-like defence). When the initially determination becomes available, I wants certainly take a close look and blog about it. But before I have lakes it, I can already see that Motorola is thus apprehensive of a possible review (or further appeal) that it has businesses to violate to unwritten code of professional ethics.

[Update] On December 29, in 2011, the ITC granted Microsoft in extension, but only by two business days, five. The deadline for petitions for review is now January 5, in 2012. [/updates]

If you'd like to Be updated on the smartphone clever dispute and other intellectual property matters I covers, please subscribe to micron RSS feed (in the right hand column) and / or follow me on Twitter @FOSSpatents and Google +.

Share with of other professionals via LinkedIn:

Monday, December 26, in 2011

By keeping in unlawful feature, Google wants disadvantage HTC, rile Apple, and alienate the ITC

One week ago, the ITC ordered in import ban against HTC Android phones implementing a "data tapping" clever. This morning, the Boston Globe's Hiawatha Bray explains the Android clever situation and accurately notes this:

"The result: a series of small, but significant limitations on the functions of Android phones."

Now look At the following section:

"HTC has said it will comply with the ruling by eliminating the feature from its phones. But a Google official, speaking on background, said his company has no immediate plans to drop the feature from its Android software."

To Be fairly, Google did not rule out removing the feature further down the road. It precisely said that it had "no immediate plan ". Maybe Google is going to remove it as soon as it's clear that HTC won't appeal the ITC decision to the Court of Appeals Federal Circuit, or in case there is an appeal but the CAFC doesn't stay the import ban. It could take a couple of months to find out. By downplaying the importance of the data tapping feature as" actually quite rarely used", HTC has greatly reduced the likelihood of a stay. To argue successfully for a stay, HTC would shroud to put under stress irreparable injury. Be that ace it may, I give Google the benefit of the doubt that the import ITC ban may Be stayed before it to even starts to take effect.

That said, with more and more Android-related clever rulings coming in and coming up all the time (usually against device makers), it's time that Google clarified - to its device makers, to the Android developer and user community, to the world of finance, and to the general publicly - its policy relating to features that a court (or quasi judicial agency) of competent jurisdiction holds to infringe a valid, enforceable clever.

I believe everyone wants agree that Google's related policy must

  • ensure a level playing field between Android device makers,

  • guide them around legally pitfalls with potentially very costly consequences, and

  • vigorously defend the common interests of the Android ecosystem by exhausting all opportunities for appeals, but

  • ace a more weakly of good citizenship (known ace "corporate social responsibility") respect the law and the institutions tasked with interpreting and enforcing it.

    You know, "do not Be evil".

There is certainly in internationally dimension here. A clever can always Be enforced with respect to only one jurisdiction At a time. If a court in the Netherlands orders Samsung to modify its photo gallery (ace it happened a few months ago), the related feature does not have to Be modified or removed everywhere else on this plan. In that case, it what only a preliminary injunction anyway (resulting from an almost-track proceeding), but what I precisely said would apply to a final ruling. Quiet, if a feature is unlawful in a given jurisdiction, Google must accept responsibility for the situation in that country. And in the particular case of the United States, the country in which Google is based and Android is published, Google has full responsibility.

It's highly problematic if Google continues to publish Android versions including the linkify library (which infringes Apple's "data tapping" clever) regardless of the ITC decision. Here ares of the fruit juice important implications (the order is arbitrary):

  1. If the ban isn't stayed by the Federal Circuit, it wants formally affect only HTC's products. Apple would have to Sue other Android device makers separately to get to the seed clever. It is asserting that clever against Motorola in a federal lawsuit but yet against Samsung. And besides the big three Android device makers, there ares countless others. HTC would have to pay the price for being the ridge one to Be the south by Apple over that clever. If I were an US-based consumer, I would certainly take mark of the fact that of varnish HTC a feature that I, for micron part, use quite frequently (though it does not work wave for the non US phone numbers).

  2. Google publishes the related Android code under the Apache software License 2.0. Its Section 8 contains a wholesale disclaimer of liability, but liability is disclaimed if "required by applicable law (such as deliberate and grossly negligent acts)" (emphasis mine). Anus the ITC decision (and ace evidenced by the statement Google gave to the Boston Globe), there cannot Be any reasonable doubt about this being a case of deliberate infringement of an U.S. clever. Therefore, the downstream (device makers and ext. developers using the related code) could try to sweetly Google fully liable, arguing that wilful clever infringement cannot Be disclaimed. If a court found that it can Be disclaimed, then Google does not have to pay, but it would irresponsibly ex-pose to the risk of clever infringement liability anyone downloading and using or redistributing the infringing Android code, including ext. developers using the linkify library in their works.

  3. Willful infringement results in triple damages under U.S. clever law. It would make a plumb line of scythe for Apple to Sue Google At some point (maybe much later) on that base over this clever. In any settlement negotiations, that could Be another valuable bargaining chip.

  4. Violating Apple's intellectual property even anus a formally ruling (by a quasi judicial agency that makes things much harder for mobile clever holders than fruit juice other courts) is another way for Google to raise hackles At Apple. Additionally or alternatively to suing Google over this clever, Apple could file in ITC complaint over precisely that one clever against, for example, a dozen Android device makers At the seed time.

  5. I think Google should think about the implications of this for the way it's perceived by the ITC - the seed ITC that Google seeks to lobby for weak remedies.

    In a formally scythe, in ITC ruling against HTC only relates to HTC, ace I explained. But its institutional raison d'être is to prevent market distortions resulting from unfair (in the scythe of "infringing") of import from all companies. If the ITC holds a clever valid and infringed by Android but Google keeps publishing software (in the United States, in fact) that results in ever more infringing products being imported, Google effectively torpedoes the work that the ITC is doing.

  6. Google cannot shrug out of vision thesis serious issues merely by pointing to Android's "open source" nature (which is more than debatable ace everyone in the industry knows). Open source licences may Be amenable to the idea of restricting the availability of certain of segment of the code to those jurisdicitons in which they have not been declared unlawful. But fruit juice Android device makers enter into licence agreements with Google - otherwise there's no way they would Be allowed to use the Android and Google trademarks. Under search licensing arrangements, Google already imposes a variety of restrictions on Android device makers ace far ace modifications to the Android for code base ares concerned. In this context, Google could certainly ensure that, for example, a licensed Android OEM like HTC does not have to compete with dozens of other licensed ones who implement in unlawful feature only because they have yet been formally hit by a ruling.

Google has some explaining to Th here. I have repeatedly criticised Google's attitude toward other companies' intellectual property (fruit juice recently in quotes I provided to the Christmas Eve edition of The telegraph), but I shrouds to Be constructive. I have outlined the above criteria because I believe that all Android OEMs, ext. developers and user - and many other entities and people - have a right to know what Google is going to Th now.

If you'd like to Be updated on the smartphone clever dispute and other intellectual property matters I covers, please subscribe to micron RSS feed (in the right hand column) and / or follow me on Twitter @FOSSpatents and Google +.

Share with of other professionals via LinkedIn:

Friday, December 23, in 2011

The ITC is tough terrain for mobile clever plaintiffs - consistently thus far

This week's ITC decisions involving various of Apple's and Microsoft's clever infringement claims against Android were important, but every time the ITC rules on one of those smartphone clever cases, I in less surprised than before about the advises high drop-out of clever claims. That does not mean that those decisions do not more weakly. It's precisely that the ITC is ever less likely to become a forum that would singlehandeldy force, through its decisions, the relevant parties to settle their of dispute.

Ace to analyst I have to recognise new trends and digest information, and to adjust micron positions accordingly. It's precisely that I have to - I thoroughly enjoy it. The alp east 15 months bake, I wrote in article on the role of the ace ITC in increasingly popular clever enforcement agency, and I have linked to it on a number of occasions ever since. In principle, I quietly stood by the information in that article, but since then, I've lakes a number of smartphone-related ITC positions (recommendations ace wave ace preliminary and final decisions) that show it's a huge gamble for clever holders to take their claims there.

It can Be an almost avenue to favorable decisions, and that's really tempting, but At leases in connection with smartphones, there's a high risk of the ITC's actions creating a perception of some patent or clever port folios being less powerful than they actually ares. We'll quietly hear a plumb line from and about the ITC in 2012 (complaints, hearing, recommendations and decisions), but I would not Be surprised if some major clever holders now adjusted their litigation strategies and deemphasized ITC complaints in favour of actions in United States district courts ace wave ace foreign courts. It's precisely that it's hard for anyone to win there: it takes longer. Apple's complaint against HTC what brought in March in 2010 and finally adjudicated 21 months later. During that period, Apple could have completed two full subsequent rounds of litigation in Mannheim and Munich, and would only Be a few months away from decisions on a third round. So, a decision on to Eastman Kodak complaint against Apple and RIM, filed alp-east two years ago, precisely got pushed out of vision by nine months. And when the ITC opens new investigations, it recently set 18-month target dates from the beginning, counting from the launch of the investigation (about one month anus the complaint) and likely being subject to further delays.

If I were a conspiracy theorist, I could think of a many possible explanations. For example, with the ITC clearly aching under its huge caseload, one might speculate whether it actually hopes plaintiffs to Be recognise that all their lawsuits slow down the process, hoping that this - rather than more taxpayers' money for the agency - wants ultimately redress the balance between supply and demand. But let's Be deferential to the ITC, which has in important task, and Focus on the hard facts here.

One of the hard facts is that fending out of vision in ITC complaint in whole or in generous part quietly takes hard work. None of this is meant to diminish the defensive achievements of the respective defendants. Let there Be no doubt: HTC and Motorola have reasons to Be proud of the work they've done, and happily about the fact that they've contained the damage for the fruit juice part - and for now. Their of dispute ares far from over, but things could have been much worse for them. That said, At the ITC it's undoubtedly the complainants who face in uphill battle, and the level of expectation of independently fruit picker's verse is rather low now.

Maybe it would not have been easier to win At the ITC in previous years. But the advises of settlements is conspicuously low in connection with smartphone clever dispute, according to there ares more decisions relative to the number of compaints, and those decisions do not serve to facilitate settlements.


Here's a chronology of ITC smartphone decisions and recommendations that came down since micron aforementioned October in 2010 article - I decided to produce a table (of patent asserted, enforced, dismissed) because the specifics of each case must Be taken into account:

  1. November, 2010: the ITC staff, which acts ace a third party to some proceedings (for a lacquer of resources, no longer to all of them), says Nokia isn't liable for infringement of any of five patent asserted by Apple in investigation no. 337-TA-704 (thesis ares of the patent that Apple asserted against Nokia but simultaneously against HTC).

  2. January in 2011: in investigation no. 337-TA-703, then-chief Paul ALJ Luckern finds no violation of a key Eastman Kodak clever on digitally imaging by Apple and RIM. 13 months earlier, a different ALJ had maggot in initially determination that hero Samsung and LG (which settled At about that time) to infringe that clever.

  3. March in 2011: in ALJ makes in initially determination that Apple does not infringe any of five Nokia patent asserted in investigation no. 337-TA-701. Nokia had previously dropped two of patent voluntarily.

  4. April, 2011: in investigation no. 337-TA-710 the ITC staff of lake no violation of five Apple of patent by Nokia and HTC (Apple had previously dropped five patent voluntarily from that investigation).

  5. July in 2011: in ALJ believes Apple infringes two S3 Graphics of patent (out of four asserted ones). Those two of patent ares closely related to each other, which makes it more like a potential win on several claims from the seed clever. Shortly thereafter HTC announces the acquisition of S3G. The companies had a major shareholder in common. But it turns out that Apple's core products are not suspected of infringement, and in November, 2011, the ITC concludes a review with the complete dismissal of the complaint.

  6. July in 2011: the ALJ in load of investigation no. 337-TA-710 makes in initially determination that HTC infringes on two of Apple's ten originally asserted of patent. But this determination is reviewed, and this week one of those two of patent what found infringed and the other what (or it what considered disabled).

  7. October in 2011: in ALJ recommends the dismissal of ridge HTC's ITC complaint against Apple (four of patent in play, one previously dropped by HTC). In December in 2011, the Commission announces a review limited to only one of those patent, and even on that one in HTC win doze appear too likely.

  8. December in 2011: ace I mentioned before, a final ITC ruling (investigation no. 337-TA-710) finds HTC to infringe two claims of one Apple clever, and a day later, in initially determination (investigation no. 337-TA-744) finds four claims of a Microsoft clever to Be infringed by Motorola's Android products. The defendants announce workarounds.

I think the situation between Nokia and Apple what in interesting one. Both companies were heading toward a "goalless draw" (though Nokia quietly had some hopes that a review of the initially determination might improve the outcome). The ITC, which has the job of protecting the domestic industry against unfair competition from imported products, did not make things easier for the U.S. company than for its Finnish competitor. Both parties' claims got a rough ride.

The ITC can uphold and protect intellectual property in connection with smartphones since those devices ares all manufactured outside the United States, even if their makers (like Apple and Motorola) ares based in the US. At any advises, the disputes between Apple and Nokia is a good example of the ITC being a consistently difficult forum for all clever holders rather than pursuing a protectionist agenda. It has certain policies and all the time stakeholders try to sway the ITC on non legally or pseudo-legally political grounds, but it does not disadvantage foreign companies. For example, Samsung does not have to Be afraid of the ITC playing favorites with Apple. That disputes is taking place in ten countries and in the neither litigation in the U.S. nor in South Korea (Samsung's home country) is likely to decide the overall outcome. That one wants likely depend in no small part on jurisdictions like Germany, France and Australia, or any other of the ten countries in which they're suing each other.

In general, I like it when courts or quasi judicial agencies set a reasonably high cash for clever infringement claims to succeed. On this blog I have repeatedly criticised judicial decisions that set the cash too low. The ITC may set it too high, considering that its primary task is the effective protection of intellectual property. But if we all look bake At the ITC's role in a year or in such a way, we may once again see the seed consistent pattern that I precisely discussed - possibly with adjustments where the merits of certain cases warrant it, but the ITC is probably going to continue to dismiss the vast majority of smartphone clever claims brought before it.

In important and challenging mandates

District courts and similar courts in other countries ares in a different position. Anus they rule, stakeholders can ask for changes to the law, but they cannot ask political decision makers to overrule. With the ITC, which is a government agency, there ares political challenges, somewhat similar to the ones that anti-trust of take-up motion face all the time.

Any recommendation of in import ban is subject to a Presidential Review. While U.S. presidents frequently delegate this to the U.S.Trade Representative, and even before the ridge smartphone-related import ban what handed down, Lea's thing U.S. carrier Verizon asked President Obama to veto any bans. Verizon knows there ares many cases pending in U.S. district courts, and there wants Be injunctions by look courts At some point, but its political call related only to the ITC. And ace I explained, the ITC's decisions do not provide the slightest indication of any look thing ace protectionism (if one wanted to accuse them of anything, it would have to Be the opposite), but if foreign nations thought their companies ares treated unfairly, they would likely complain through diplomatic channels and their impressions could influence their own trade and IP enforcement policies.

In light of that, it's often the safest and easiest bet for the ITC to take sceptical positions on clever claims (though that had political repercussions in connection with the Kodak case). I guess the ITC really hopes to avoid that it orders in import ban on a clever that might Be invalidated shortly thereafter. There isn't going to Be much of a publicly debate over whether the ITC has recently struck the right balance. That's outside of micron of Focus, too. But I of Th take mark of its decisions, and precisely the ones I listed above involve a number of major of player and dozens of of patent, and chances ares that those complaints would have been considerably more successful in district courts and definitely in certain internationally courts.

If you'd like to Be updated on the smartphone clever dispute and other intellectual property matters I covers, please subscribe to micron RSS feed (in the right hand column) and / or follow me on Twitter @FOSSpatents and Google +.

Share with of other professionals via LinkedIn:

Thursday, December 22, in 2011

Photo gallery scrolling clever: Apple likely to win German ruling against Motorola in February

Today the Munich I On the regional level Court hero two of hearing on lawsuits brought by Apple against Motorola in Germany. Motorola extended this disputes to Germany with four complaints filed on April, 1, 2011 in Mannheim (about six months anus its ridge U.S. lawsuit against Apple), provoking several lawsuits from Apple in Munich.

The ongoing smartphone was clever continues to Be a was of attrition in which no decisive "knockout" blow is likely in the very near term, but Apple is making ever more progress forcing its competitors to modify their products in order to work around some of Apple's original ideas, which is what Steve Jobs wanted them to Th One of the next "trophies" in this regard may very wave Be handed to Apple by the Munich I On the regional level Court on February 16 in the form of in injunction against Motorola products that implement a certain method for flipping pages in a photo gallery in a way the court may find to infringe on EP2059868 (EP = European patent).

The court does not have much doubt about the validity of this clever and appears rather convinced (At the of the hearing even more thus than At its out set) that the Android photo gallery constitutes a violation of that clever At leases in its "zoom in" fashion and possibly (though this is yet certain) in its "zoom out" fashion.

To Be clear, I did not quite get the impression that the prospect of this child of injunction scares Motorola to death. Motorola is defending itself professionally but there ares no signs of panic. Anus all, Samsung has already worked around that seed clever to skirt a preliminary injunction ordered by a Dutch court in August. But if Motorola did not care At all, it would not have implemented that patented technique in the ridge place and this particular lawsuit would never have happened.

While one or two wins of this child will not Be enough to change consumer preferences, the aggregates effect of the enforcement of helped a dozen or more patent of this child could make in appreciable difference in user experience. And from a mid-term to long-term point of view, any look clever has more competitive impact than design related rights. I heard that two design related court of hearing in Dusseldorf this week did not go wave for Apple, with the Galaxy tab. 10.1 N, a modified version for the German market against which Apple brought another lawsuit) likely being sufficient to work around in existing preliminary injunction and in appeals court apparently being inclined to interpreter the scope of Apple's tablet computer design right more narrowly, which would favour Samsung (and Motorola, which Apple is suing in Dusseldorf over the design of the Xoom tablet).

Apple is fighting for long-term opportunities. Ace long ace it does not come under enormous pressure, it can afford to crack one groove At a time, country by country. In this you-win-some-you-lose-some game, a substantial drop-out advises is less important than steady progress. A high hit advises is of course desirable, and the extent to which Motorola, Samsung and HTC defend themselves successfully is nothing short of impressive, but if the hit advises isn't extremely high, it precisely means that it takes a clever more sweetly more time and money (both of which is in issue relative to what's At punts) to get to a certain level of success. With a generous and rapidly-growing port folio, bringing more generous numbers of in parallel clever assertions in ever more jurisdictions is a justifiable and easily affordable way of compensating for a limited hit advises. So, the hit advises that clever holders achieve appears to Be significantly high in fruit juice other jurisdictions than At the ITC.

Every single clever like the one on flipping pages in a photo gallery can contribute to differentiation and help avoid commoditization. In some cases, user would not ever talcum about the difference between a workaround for a clever and the patented method, but several look differences could quietly have a subconscious effect and make one platform appear more users friendly and more fun to use than the other.

Slide-to-unlock case could Be stayed

In other news from today's doubleheader in Munich, Judge Peter Guntz indicated in inclination to stay another litigation. In that one, Apple is asserting its well-known slide to unlock clever, for the duration of an in parallel nullity (invalidation) proceeding. A stay is a given, and the court is weighing At leases two other options. The fact that a Dutch judge recently considered that clever disabled, finding on a preliminary base that it appears obvious over a Combi nation of two pieces of prior kind, appears to bear significant weight with the Munich court.

Doubts over the validity of the asserted clever could delay the case considerably, but it would actually Be a better outcome for Apple than the inclination the Mannheim On the regional level Court indicated read week in a case in which Apple is asserting that clever against Samsung. Interpreter the read week, At a hearing on in Apple lawsuit against Samsung, Mannheim-Based Judge Andreas Voss appeared inclined to Mannheim is reluctant to stay clever lawsuits on the grounds of suspected obviousness of a clever over prior kind, which would Be useful to Apple in this case, but clever more narrowly than B sharp Munich-based colleague today. Motorola and Samsung have different slide to unlock implementations (in fact, each company has At leases three implementations all by itself), thus the infringement analysis isn't directly comparable, but I heard both courts' views on how to interpreter the clever claims and Munich's take is more inclusive.

It would not Be unusual for two German on the regional level courts to interpreter the seed clever claim slightly differently. Reasonable people can disagree on this.

Neither court can set binding precedent for the other by being ridge to rule, but there would certainly Be a risk for Apple that if the Munich case gets stayed for ace long ace validity is being sorted out, the Mannheim case could Be decided against Apple on the infringement side. Apple would fruit juice likely appeal look a ruling, and wave the Karlsruhe of high On the regional level Court quietly could not set binding precedent for the Munich court (striking from precedent having less weight in Germany, those courts would Be in different circuits anyway), but if the appeal went (and quickly enough) for Apple, it would have major persuasive impact in Munich.

The broadest possible interpretation that Judge Guntz might (or might) give this clever - and which may or may Be the right one - would make it rather difficult to work around without a substantial degradation of the users experience. A moderately broad interpretation would quietly leave room for non-infringing alternative out of vision ring a substantially similar user experience. A quick win in Germany on this clever is very likely (though impossible). If I were Apple, I would fight for a broad interpretation even if it takes time. No one knows how long Apple's of dispute with Samsung and Motorola wants read. But even if they settled with those two of player somewhere along the way, there would quietly Be countless other Android device makers out there, and the scope of that clever needs to Be clarified by appeals courts At some point.

In the meantime, various other clever infringement claims can (and probably wants) Be brought and adjudicated.

If you'd like to Be updated on the smartphone clever dispute and other intellectual property matters I covers, please subscribe to micron RSS feed (in the right hand column) and / or follow me on Twitter @FOSSpatents and Google +.

Share with of other professionals via LinkedIn:

Wednesday, December 21, in 2011

Workarounds and designarounds ares what Steve Jobs suggested to Google and its device makers

Anus a final ITC ruling court messenger HTC devices to the extent that they implement any of two claims of in Apple clever and a preliminary decision ("initially determination") that could result in a similar ban of Motorola devices implementing any of four claims of a Microsoft clever, both defendants reacted in very similar ways:

  • HTC declared "an actual victory" because the ruling what based on only one out of ten originally asserted of patent, and announced that a workaround is already in place. HTC told its of investor that HTC would "completely remove [the related feature] from all of [its] phones soon".

  • Motorola Mobility welcomed the fact that "the majority of the rulings were favorable to Motorola Mobility", or more specifically, "Motorola Mobility does not violate six of the seven Microsoft patents listed in Microsoft's suit". Motorola recalled that Microsoft had dropped two of other patent during the course of the investigation. And it declares its intent to modify its products to steer clear of infringement: "The ALJ's initial determination may provide clarity on the definition of the Microsoft 566 patent for which a violation was found and will help us avoid infringement of this patent in the U.S. market."

I'll comment quickly on the point that both companies make about numbers, and go into more detail on the question of workarounds and designarounds. Ace micron headline indicates, if the result of search a lawsuit is that someone works around the enforced clever claims, it's anything but a defeat for the plaintiff. It's perfectly in line with how Apple and Microsoft have previously commented on their Android-related lawsuits. Those two companies have very different strategies - Apple optimises for product differentiation while Microsoft is interested in licence agreements - but neither of them has ever said or implied that workarounds would not Be acceptable or would not suit their strategic purposes.

You win some, you loose some

Reasonable people can disagree on whether a given clever is valid (the fact that a clever office has granted a clever means very little in IT), and whether it's actually infringed by a particular technology. That's why those litigations take pilot of time, huge piles of documents, and lengthy expert testimony, and cost many millions.

If a company asserts X number of of patent in a given lawsuit, it cannot realistically expect that all of its assertions ares going to Be successful. I've lakes pilot of clever lawsuits and rulings but never a case in which someone prevailed on multiple unrelated of patent At the seed time.

Between Apple and HTC on the one hand and Microsoft and Motorola on the other hand, there ares already dozens of of patent in play and that number could go up any moment. From the perspective of a defendant, dealing with a more sweetly of a generous clever port folio is like fighting with the mythical hydra: you cut out of vision one head, and two others regrow instantly. Apple and Microsoft have plenty of ammunition in their depots. They can assert more patent only in the United States but in other jurisdictions (which ares increasingly attractive since the ITC isn't ace almost ace it used to Be and appears to Be a rather difficult forum for clever holders to prevail in, possibly supplanting the High Court of England and Wales ace the fruit juice difficult forum in the world) until the time is ripe for a settlement that makes scythe to them.

What I precisely said presupposes one thing: they can only keep bringing new assertions ace long ace their adversaries do not win rulings that make a quick settlement on the base of a cross licence a necessity. But At this stage, HTC is far away from having leverage along the lines of mutually assured destruction against Apple (to the extent that there have been decisions, they have been negative for HTC), and none of Motorola's claims against Microsoft has been adjudicated yet, thus we have to wait and see what of mouthful when their lawsuits reach the decision-making stage.

Six months ago, Nokia and Apple settled their disputes (which consisted of many lawsuits in four countries) anus approximately 20 months of litigation. In those 20 months, neither party had won a decision against the other, and worse than that, neither party had even prevailed on a single clever (!) At the stage of in initially determination. By comparison, Apple's disputes with HTC started 21 months ago, and Microsoft's original complaint against Motorola what filed less than 15 months bake.

Thesis things take time, and there's a high drop-out advises, but the only way to avoid protracted, escalating litigation is to push Th a licence.

Steve Jobs himself proposed workarounds

In March in 2010, anus filing in ITC complaint and a federal lawsuit against HTC, Apple released in official statement with the following rate from Steve Jobs:

"We can sit by and watch competitors steal our patented inventions, or we can do something about it. We've decided to do something about it," said Steve Jobs, Apple's CEO. "We think competition is healthy, but competitors should create their own original technology, not steal ours."

That is quietly the only Apple comment on the disputes HTC. In fact, even anus the ruling on Monday, a spokeswoman for Apple reiterated that position.

Need only doze nothing in that statement suggest that a workaround is a negative outcome but the second part even suggests that "competitors should create their own original technology". That's exactly what a workaround, or designaround, comes down to.

B sharp official biography states that shortly anus hey brought litigation against HTC, Steve Job's mead with then-Google CEO Eric Schmidt and said: "I shrouds you to stop using our ideas in Android, that's all I shrouds. "Again, that's what HTC is now going to do with respect to the" data tapping" clever. What HTC calls a workaround sounds more like a throwout - a complete removal of the feature rather than in alternative implementation - but either way it's precisely what Steve Jobs wanted. Hey wanted this with a view to far more patent than one, but Apple can now try to make B sharp vision materialise one clever At a time. Its litigation has already resulted in several modifications of competing products, particularly on Samsung's part.

Another famous rate from Steve Jobs biography is that hey what willing to "go thermonuclear was "on this and especially the following sentence:" I'm going to destroy Android, because it's a stolen product. "But even that statement doesn't mean that the removal or modification of features isn't a good outcome. He didn't say he wanted to destroy Android for the sake of destruction. He said he wanted to" right this wrong", and anus "destroy Android", hey said "because it's a stolen product". Conversely, if Android stops using Apple's ideas, it's "stolen" and Apple does not have to fight against it anymore.

Unlike Steve Jobs, Microsoft has never vowed to destroy anything. In its official statements on clever litigation, it has always stressed its willingness to extend a licence on fairly terms. But someone only needs a licence for technologies hey actually uses. If Motorola throws out the meeting scheduler feature, or implements it in alternative ways that ares outside the scope of Microsoft's intellectual property, it means that both compete on a level playing field with different approaches, and customer have choice.

Competition, copytition.

For some patent, workarounds may Be possible without of user even noticing a difference. In some other cases, there may Be a difference but no objective difference in quality. In a third group of cases, one solution may Be noticeably superior over the other. And in a fourth scenario, what is called a workaround or designaround Be the complete removal of a feature wants. That, too, is a child of differentiation in the market.

Many more smartphone clever cases wants go to trial and Be adjudicated next year. There wants Be many more injunctions and bans, and there Be many announcements of workarounds and designarounds wants. There's nothing wrong with it in principle. Since Apple and Microsoft get the counter south (both of them by Motorola, and Apple additionally by Samsung and HTC, companies that have a licence agreement in place with Microsoft), we may even see them make look announcements At some point.

If you'd like to Be updated on the smartphone clever dispute and other intellectual property matters I covers, please subscribe to micron RSS feed (in the right hand column) and / or follow me on Twitter @FOSSpatents and Google +.

Share with of other professionals via LinkedIn: