Mikey CampbellJudge Richard Posner sitting by designation on the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois dismissed Apple's patent suit against Motorola "with prejudice," meaning that the assertions can't be reargued in front of that particular court, after giving the iPhone maker a second chance at an injunction earlier this week.
The judge, who has been an outspoken critic of Apple's court tactics, temporarily canceled Apple's trial in early June citing lack of injury but decided to rehear the case two weeks later. During the second hearing Apple once again argued for injunctive relief against Motorola's alleged infringement on four patents regarding heuristics, UI elements and wireless technology. The court was unimpressed with both the assertions as well as Apple's injunction request that asked the Droid maker to switch to its own solution within three months.
According to court documents, Judge Posner recommended that Apple license the technology to Motorola instead seeking an injunction which would be "catastrophic" and harmful to consumers. He also noted that merely issuing an injunction wouldn't necessarily stop Apple from reasserting the same claims when Motorola switched to another solution three months later.
On Apple's claims that it had been harmed by Motorola's actions, Judge Posner said that the Cupertino-based company was attempting to leverage precedent set in a 2010 court case involving Microsoft. The presiding judge in that case stated that “a small company was practicing its patent, onlyto suffer a loss of market share, brand recognition, and customergoodwill as the result of the defendant’s infringing acts. Suchlosses may frequently defy attempts at valuation, particularlywhen the infringing acts significantly change the relevant mar-ket, as occurred here.†To this Judge Posner said, "Apple is not a “small companyâ€; its market capitalization exceeds that of Google and Microsoft combined. To suggest that it has suffered loss of market share, brand recognition, or customer goodwill as a result of Motorola’s alleged infringement of the patent claims still in play in this caseis wild conjecture."
Judge Posner said that the only reasonable outcome to the case is dismissal, both of Apple's and Motorola's claims, arguing that the case should not be considered moot as the dismissal itself can be appealed. He explains that "even if no appeal were planned, the case would not be moot, because a failure of proof, whether with respect to liability or to remedy, while itends a case does not make the case moot. A dismissal for moot-ness ordinarily (though with exceptions, for example because of voluntary cessation by the defendant of his alleged misconduct, or because the case is capable of repetition but evades review) is without prejudice."
"It would be ridiculous to dismiss a suit for failure to prove damages and allow the plaintiff to refile the suit so that he could have a second chance to prove damages," Judge Posner said. "This case is therefore dismissed with prejudice; a separate order to that effect is being entered today."
The ruling wraps up at least one chapter of the Apple v. Motorola saga that began when the Droid maker filed a complaint with the ITC in 2010 only to be hit shortly after with the Apple countersuit dismissed today. Both parties have the option to appeal the dismissal to a higher court but no official plans to do so have been announced.
-m.jpg)
Charles Martin
Malcolm Owen
William Gallagher
Christine McKee
Wesley Hilliard
76 Comments
For him to dismiss the case is just asking for an appeal to be filed. Apple isn't likely to let Moto go on infringing on their patents. THey are going to want it stopped even if they are told that they can't prove any actual damages so they get nothing for previous infringement outside of perhaps a license fee that the court might insist they decide the amount. They might also order that if Moto is caught infringing again there will be damages, perhaps preset by the court.
[quote name="charlituna" url="/t/150862/apples-patent-case-against-motorola-dismissed-with-prejudice#post_2132949"]For him to dismiss the case is just asking for an appeal to be filed. Apple isn't likely to let Moto go on infringing on their patents. THey are going to want it stopped even if they are told that they can't prove any actual damages so they get nothing for previous infringement outside of perhaps a license fee that the court might insist they decide the amount. They might also order that if Moto is caught infringing again there will be damages, perhaps preset by the court. [/quote] Exactly. This one goes to the appeals court and is likely to be overturned. The way that the case was handled clearly shows abuse of judicial discretion. Furthermore, the entire basis for dismissal is questionable. Specfiically: 1. Posner pushed Apple to license the technology to Motorola. This is, of course, not something that he has the legal authority to do other than a very serious matter with serious public policy implications. The fact that Microsoft claims that they could work around the patents suggests that there are no such implications. More importantly, by encouraging Apple to license to Motorola, he is acknowledging the validity of the patents. 2. He then dismisses the patent case. How can he do that after admitting that the patents are valid? He basically contradicted his own argument. Furthermore, his argument that Apple can't be harmed because it's bigger than Google and Microsoft is nonsensical. Of course Apple can be harmed. It might not be fatal, but there's nothing that says injunctions can only be issued if the applicant is in danger of extinction. This will be overturned before the end of the summer.
Posner is a respected judge. I doubt that an appeal will be successful. My guess is that both sides just need to move on with respect to this particular case. It's over. There are plenty of other disputes to resolve.
Likely to be overturned?
Time will tell, but currently little evidence of this being likely.
Posner is a respected judge. I doubt that an appeal will be successful. My guess is that both sides just need to move on with respect to this particular case. It's over. There are plenty of other disputes to resolve.
Likely to be overturned?
Time will tell, but currently little evidence of this being likely.
The fact he pushed Apple to license the patent tacitly indicates he believes there was a violation. Dismissing the case in view of that is a contradiction. He is as likely as not to get the case remainded for a re-hearing. Or he may just get plain overruled. There isn't much wiggle room.