AppleInsider Staff
Judge Allan Gropper's decision covers Apple's pending complaint over a digital photo patent, as well as a separate monetary damages suit the company is looking to level against Kodak, reports the Wall Street Journal.
The pending litigation regarding how camera users view digital photographs on LCD screens was automatically stopped when Kodak filed for bankruptcy, but Apple sought to unfreeze the stay so that litigation could continue.
A company that files for Chapter 11 protection usually receives certain safeguards against pending litigation so that it can reorganize, and Judge Gropper repeatedly mentioned that Kodak has only been bankrupt since January.
Judge Gropper, who is in charge of Kodak's Chapter 11 case, shot down an attempt by Apple to move the suit from a court in Rochester, New York to Manhattan for a jury trial. He went on to say that in spite of his decision, it is possible that the two companies could continue the battle outside of bankruptcy court.
"The first 45 days are difficult in any bankruptcy case; the debtor has dozens of balls in the air, dozens of matters to take care of," Judge Gropper told an Apple lawyer at Thursday's hearing. "What's the need for immediate relief?"
Apple was looking to block Kodak's auction of an estimated $2.2 billion to $2.6 billion in patents, which needs to be complete by June in order to meet a stipulation of the $950 million loan keeping the company afloat during the bankruptcy process.
Christine McKee
Malcolm Owen
Sponsored Content
Amber Neely
15 Comments
A U.S. Bankruptcy Court judge on Thursday declared that Apple must not move forward with its patent suit against Eastman Kodak, and barred the iPhone maker from instigating any future litigation involving the bankrupt company.
Judge Allan Gropper's decision covers Apple's pending complaint over a digital photo patent, as well as a separate monetary damages suit the company is looking to level against Kodak, reports the Wall Street Journal.
The pending litigation regarding how camera users view digital photographs on LCD screens was automatically stopped when Kodak filed for bankruptcy, but Apple sought to unfreeze the stay so that litigation could continue.
A company that files for Chapter 11 protection usually receives certain safeguards against pending litigation so that it can reorganize, and Judge Gropper repeatedly mentioned that Kodak has only been bankrupt since January.
Judge Gropper, who is in charge of Kodak's Chapter 11 case, shot down an attempt by Apple to move the suit from a court in Rochester, New York to Manhattan for a jury trial. He went on to say that in spite of his decision, it is possible that the two companies could continue the battle outside of bankruptcy court.
"The first 45 days are difficult in any bankruptcy case; the debtor has dozens of balls in the air, dozens of matters to take care of," Judge Gropper told an Apple lawyer at Thursday's hearing. "What's the need for immediate relief?"
Apple was looking to block Kodak's auction of an estimated $2.2 billion to $2.6 billion in patents, which needs to be complete by June in order to meet a stipulation of the $950 million loan keeping the company afloat during the bankruptcy process.
[ View article on AppleInsider ]
here we go - i am gonna get some popcorn...
By the same token, all contracts entered into by Kodak x number of days before filing bankruptcy are considered void by the bankruptcy court, and Kodak can't possibly enter into any new ones without court-approval now. Apple's patents should remain safe.
I have worked for a company in bankruptcy, and they couldn't do anything without the judges approval, not even pay employees.
A Reuters news article today (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...82715S20120308) notes:
"But while Gropper denied that request, he agreed that the case needs to be resolved sooner rather than later, and in a way that does not interfere with Kodak's ongoing plans to sell its patent portfolio and emerge from bankruptcy.
"I would request that the parties report to me on their efforts to come up with a procedure that truly works," he said."
Looks to me like a decision that is somewhat narrow, and buys Kodak a little bit of time get their bankruptcy papers in order. Perhaps someone in the know can elucidate?
A Reuters news article today (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...82715S20120308) notes:
"But while Gropper denied that request, he agreed that the case needs to be resolved sooner rather than later, and in a way that does not interfere with Kodak's ongoing plans to sell its patent portfolio and emerge from bankruptcy.
"I would request that the parties report to me on their efforts to come up with a procedure that truly works," he said."
Looks to me like a decision that is somewhat narrow, and buys Kodak a little bit of time get their bankruptcy papers in order. Perhaps someone in the know can elucidate?
Even Gropper admits that his order is meaningless:
The fundamental problem is that Gropper does not have jurisdiction to ban Apple from filing in other courts. He can rule against them as a creditor and try to prevent them from making a claim in the bankruptcy court, but Apple's claim is that the patents are not Kodak's property - and therefore not subject to Gropper's decision.
This one will be appealed.
Maybe I'm a bit thick here, but have I got this right:
Kodak and Apple have ongoing patent disputes. Kodak files bankruptcy. Kodak agrees to sell patents, and some of which are in dispute Apple. Apple files to have patent dispute resolved. Judge says 'no' to Apple's request.
Does this mean that Kodak can go ahead with selling the patents Apple is claiming they own, or are they in limbo while the bankruptcy is lined out?