Roger Fingas
On Thursday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit refused to stay proceedings in Smartflash's patent lawsuit against Apple, potentially paving the way for Smartflash claiming recalculated damages.
Samsung — which is facing a separate Smartflash suit — has however been granted a halt to proceedings while the validity of patents is determined by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Reuters said. The outcome could influence the course of Apple's case.
In February, Smartflash won a $532.9 million verdict against Apple, claiming that services like the iTunes Store, App Store, and iAd violated three patents connected to "data storage and managing access through payment systems." Smartflash does not sell any products or services of its own, and instead relies on patent licensing and lawsuits to generate revenue.
Earlier this month though U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap tossed out the initial verdict, stating that his jury instructions may have improperly affected the damage assessment. With today's ruling, a September 14 damages retrial should be set to go ahead.
Apple has very vocally defended its position, accusing Smartflash of exploiting the U.S. patent system despite having no U.S. presence, and contributing nothing to the economy in terms of jobs or products.
William Gallagher
Christine McKee
Andrew Orr
Charles Martin
Marko Zivkovic
Wesley Hilliard
15 Comments
[quote name="sog35" url="/t/187432/federal-appeals-court-declines-to-stay-smartflash-case-against-apple#post_2754698"]I want to see more about the Microsoft vs Google/Motorolla case. Looks like Google lost. They were trying to charge Microsoft 2.25% royalty fee on the ENTIRE DEVICE for using standard essential patents. Google was trying to get $4 billion in royalties. LOL. Judge said no. Only $8 million. That Motorolla $12 billion acquisition by Google is looking worse and worse by the day. On Google's books those Motorolla patents are valued at over $5 billion. LOLLLLLOOOLLLLOLLLOLOLL!!! Looks like Google will have to take a massive write off on those and show a $5 billion loss. [/quote] This is a poster-child example of why posts go off-topic. :\ One lawsuit has nothing to do with the other and it wasn't Google's lawsuit in the first place. It's Motorola's who is now owned by Lenovo. As for the IP you mentioned, in the end I [B]think[/B] it's been calculated that the patent portfolio (17K of them?) that Google kept cost them around $2B which would be quite a bargain really. I can do a search if you'd like. No "write-off" for the IP will be needed anytime soon AFAIK EDIT: I was wrong. Looks like the patents cost them $1.5B and not $2B. http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/12/22/did-motorola-mobility-only-cost-google-1-5-billion/
[quote name="sog35" url="/t/187432/federal-appeals-court-declines-to-stay-smartflash-case-against-apple#post_2754727"] Google still owns the Moto patents. [COLOR=222222]"After a 2012 trial, U.S. District Judge James Robart in Seattle said the appropriate royalty rate was $1.8 million, far less than Motorola's demand for as much as $4 billion a year. A jury later found Motorola in breach of contract. Google appealed the verdict and the royalty rate to the 9th Circuit."[/COLOR] [URL=http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/30/us-microsoft-google-patents-idUSKCN0Q42L520150730]http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/30/us-microsoft-google-patents-idUSKCN0Q42L520150730[/URL] Its Google who is in court fighting for $4 billion from microsoft. Tell how those patents are worth $5 billion (that is their book value) when they only produced a few million in royalties the last 3 years? [/quote] It's still Motorola's lawsuit. Even per your own link "The case is Microsoft Corp vs. Motorola Mobility Inc et al, 14-35393". More details on the case here: http://www.essentialpatentblog.com/2015/04/ninth-circuit-to-hear-oral-argument-on-motorolas-appeal-of-judge-robarts-ruling-microsoft-v-motorola/ Sog, do you think the only company paying royalties on former Motorola IP is Microsoft? Where the heck do you find there's only $3M in royalties over the past three year?. In addition if royalties was the only basis for patent value Apple's IP can't be worth much at all can it? Geesh you seem to make it up as you go sometimes. As for the taxes you say can't be written off there are multiple reports from business publications and tax professionals noting they can write off up to $700M per year against their profits thru 2019. But again, why are you posting off-topic in the first place? It's a bit trollish to do so isn't it?
As for the IP you mentioned, in the end I think it's been calculated that the patent portfolio (17K of them?) that Google kept cost them around $2B which would be quite a bargain really. I can do a search if you'd like. No "write-off" for the IP will be needed anytime soon AFAIK
EDIT: I was wrong. Looks like the patents cost them $1.5B and not $2B.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/12/22/did-motorola-mobility-only-cost-google-1-5-billion/
The comments are not favorable to the writer's analysis, some saying his assumptions are wrong, and others adding that the tax benefits follow Motorola; they won't continue to go to Google after the sale to Lenovo.
This doesn't seem like an analysis that I would consider very reliable, especially after the sale.
[quote name="sog35" url="/t/187432/federal-appeals-court-declines-to-stay-smartflash-case-against-apple#post_2754727"] Plus that article is wrong since Google can no longer take those TAX LOSES deduction since they sold Motorola. [/quote] I believe you would be wrong yet again. [quote name="tmay" url="/t/187432/federal-appeals-court-declines-to-stay-smartflash-case-against-apple#post_2754793"]The comments are not favorable to the writer's analysis, some saying his assumptions are wrong, and others adding that the tax benefits follow Motorola; they won't continue to go to Google after the sale to Lenovo. This doesn't seem like an analysis that I would consider very reliable, especially after the sale. [/quote]The Forbes writer was not the only one to report the tax writeoffs to Google's benefit: "The tax benefits of the deal make what was a good deal into a great deal," said Robert Willens, a New York accounting and tax expert. He estimated that through the acquisition, Google can expect to reap $700m a year in tax deductions from future profits each year through 2019. Google also will be able to immediately reduce its taxes by $1bn due to Motorola Mobility's US net operating loss, and by a further $700m due to its foreign operating loss, he said." So what makes Willens a reliable expert on taxes you may be asking? http://www.bna.com/robert-willens-h2147483823/ I think you can probably trust his analysis even if you don't trust the Forbes writer, don't you agree? Now back on track with Smartflash and Apple. Can you believe there's been over 500 actions in this case so far? Crazy. https://dockets.justia.com/docket/texas/txedce/6:2013cv00447/144874
http://www.essentialpatentblog.com/2015/04/ninth-circuit-to-hear-oral-argument-on-motorolas-appeal-of-judge-robarts-ruling-microsoft-v-motorola/
Sog, do you think the only company paying royalties on former Motorola IP is Microsoft? Where the heck do you find there's only $3M in royalties over the past three year?. In addition if royalties was the only basis for patent value Apple's IP can't be worth much at all can it? Geesh you seem to make it up as you go sometimes.
As for the taxes you say can't be written off there are multiple reports from business publications and tax professionals noting they can write off up to $700M per year against their profits thru 2019.
But again, why are you posting off-topic in the first place? It's a bit trollish to do so isn't it?
The patents belong to Google and it is Google who is the plaintiff in the case now.
There is another case where Motorola was and continues to be a defendant and that is the one that you mention, about Motorola failing its FRAND obligations when seeking for patent royalties against Microsoft.
As for tax benefits your 2012 article quote doesn’t say how much Google benefited until 2014, it only mentions maximum benefits. Nor can it say what happened after Motorola was sold in 2014. Under normal circumstances those tax benefits should continue with Motorola, not with Google.