Federal appeals court rules Apple did not infringe on Google patents
Federal appeals court rules Apple did not infringe on Google patents
Photo source or description

[JURIST] Friday, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit [official website] ruled [text, PDF] that Apple Inc. did not infringe on any of Google Inc.’s [corporate profiles] Motorola Mobility patents in the creation of the iPhone. Motorola Mobility, newly acquired by Google in the attempt to gain their patents, claimed on appeal that Apple had infringed on several of their patents, particularly one involving data delivery. The arguments centered around the functionality of the devices and how data is received by the respective phones. The appeals court noted in their opinion:

Motorola had not presented sufficient evidence to demonstrate a causal connection between a change in accessibility of an application on the Droid 2 and a communication of the change in accessibility without any further intervening action by the user… As such, there was substantial evidence to support the Commission’s finding that Motorola failed to satisfy the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement.

This ruling is a blow to Google’s claim to the patent and they are reportedly evaluating further action which could include attempting to take the case to the US Supreme Court [official website].

Apple has been involved in several patent infringement cases, including a dispute with Samsung [JURIST op-ed]. Last month, South Korea’s Seoul Central District Court dismissed [JURIST report] a Samsung claim against Apple attempting to ban the sale of certain Apple products. In November, a US jury awarded Apple $290.45 million [JURIST report] following a re-trial on damages. The dispute with Motorola in the ITC has been the subject of debate [JURIST op-ed] since it was decided last May. A jury originally awarded Apple a $1.05 billion judgment [JURIST report] against Samsung in 2012. However, Judge Lucy Koh reduced the damages awarded [JURIST report] by $450 million in March of last year because she found that the jury calculated damages for certain infringing Samsung products based on improper legal grounds.