Josh OngJudge Robert Rogers found one of Apple's patents invalid and pronounced that Kodak had infringed on neither of the two patents in Apple's case against the company, Bloomberg reports. Rogers' ruling will be reviewed by the six-member ITC, which can block the importation of products infringing on U.S. patents.
“We’re pleased by today’s ruling and we are looking forward to the full ITC commission’s ruling in our case against Apple and RIM, which is expected in late June,†Kodak spokesman David Lanzillo said in a statement.
Apple's case against Kodak was filed in April of last year as a countersuit to an earlier suit from the company. The iPhone maker alleged that Kodak had infringed on patents for a "Computer vision system for subject characterization" and "Modular digital image processing via an image processing chain with modifiable parameter controls."
Camera models listed in the complaint included the Z series, M series, C series, Kodak SLICE and several video cameras including the Zx3 PLAYSPORT.
Kodak sued Apple in January 2010, alleging that the company had infringed on a patent related to previewing images. After the ITC agreed to investigate Kodak's complaint, a judge ruled in favor of Apple earlier this year, stating that the claim that Kodak's patent was "an obvious variation of an earlier invention" was valid.
In March, the ITC announced that it would review the decision, which Kodak has said could be worth more than $1 billion in royalties.
Shares of Kodak have fallen sharply since the beginning of the year as investors expressed doubt over the company's revenue sources. As sales of traditional film products have dried up, the company has turned to its patent portfolio in hopes of earning royalties to fund the transition to digital imaging.
Kodak stock closed the day up 1 percent at $2.85, with shares jumping up 7 percent in after hours trading.
Charles Martin
Malcolm Owen
William Gallagher
Christine McKee
Wesley Hilliard
14 Comments
Apple saying Kodak infringing on their camera patent? Hmm...
Wouldn't that be like Kodak saying Apple infringing on their computer patent?...
Before I get flamed, think about it from this general perspective and don't get too technical on me...
Apple's forte... Computer/OS and software expert with 35 years experience.
Kodak's forte... Camera and film expert with over 120 years experience.
Now was this lawsuit saying a camera company with 120 years experience and Heaven knows how many IP and patents, really necessary?
Okay... Now you may begin flaming!...
/
/
/
Apple saying Kodak infringing on their camera patent? Hmm...
Wouldn't that be like Kodak saying Apple infringing on their computer patent?...
Before I get flamed, think about it from this general perspective and don't get too technical on me...
Apple's forte... Computer/OS and software expert with 35 years experience.
Kodak's forte... Camera and film expert with over 120 years experience.
Now was this lawsuit saying a camera company with 120 years experience and Heaven knows how many IP and patents, really necessary?
Okay... Now you may begin flaming!...
/
/
/
Apple has been producing Digital Camera technology as long as Kodak. Kodak went from film to digital long after Apple had produced a Digital Camera and iSight type of product.
Apple QuickTake is from 1992.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_QuickTake
Kodak stock closed the day up 1 percent at $2.85, with shares jumping up 7 percent in after hours trading.
Is AI just noting the stock change or implying there is a direct relation between this outcome and the stock?
Apple saying Kodak infringing on their camera patent? Hmm…
Being first or having more experience in a field don’t mean another can’t come up with a unique and novel idea, especially when you consider how much has changed in the past 120 years and how much has moved to digital and electronic where Apple does play. I certainly hope the judge didn’t consider the patent’s validity by looking at the age and primary markets of these companies.
Apple saying Kodak infringing on their camera patent? Hmm...
Wouldn't that be like Kodak saying Apple infringing on their computer patent?...
Before I get flamed, think about it from this general perspective and don't get too technical on me...
Apple's forte... Computer/OS and software expert with 35 years experience.
Kodak's forte... Camera and film expert with over 120 years experience.
Now was this lawsuit saying a camera company with 120 years experience and Heaven knows how many IP and patents, really necessary?
Okay... Now you may begin flaming!...
/
/
/
That's all irrelevant.
Aside from mdriftmeyer's correct statement that Apple has been producing digital cameras about as long as Kodak, it doesn't matter how long they've been doing something. A newcomer to a field can easily come up with a patent that the old-timers never dreamed of. In fact, it's not uncommon - newcomers bring a different perspective.
Your example would be like saying that Toyota could never come up with anything new because Mercedes has been making cars longer. Obviously, that's absurd.
As for the necessity, of course it was necessary for Apple. Kodak sued them for patent infringement and Apple has every right to defend itself in any way it can. Apparently, ITC didn't buy this one, but that doesn't mean that it won't work in court. Nor does it mean that it shouldn't have been tried - Apple apparently thought they had a chance of winning that argument.
Kodak built and patented the first digital camera in 1975.
Apple just needs to buy us and get access to our IP and be done with it! Then I can say I reached my life goal of working for Apple!