Apple, Google appeal dismissal of Apple v. Motorola suit

The expected move will take Apple's suit to the Federal Circuit, which FOSS Patents' Florian Mueller notes is seen as being partial to patent-holders and may likely reverse some of Judge Posner's ruling.

Mueller said that "given the large number of claims at issue in that action and the fact that the Federal Circuit reverses at last part of an appealed ruling in more than 40% of all cases, it would be a statistical anomaly if each and every one of Judge Posner's decisions was affirmed."

While the highly-esteemed Judge Posner is an expert in antitrust law, he is in actuality an appellate judge and volunteered to preside over the Apple v. Motorola trial case "by designation" because he "enjoys" patent cases.

According to Mueller, both Apple and Google are opposing every ruing that was not in their respective favor.

Apple's filing appeals:

1. those portions of the Court's summary judgment and claim construction orders that were adverse to Apple (including without limitation Dkt. Nos. 176, 526, 556, 671, 691, 706, 724, 751, 767, 826 and 1005);

2. those portions of the Court's evidentiary orders (including without limitation Dkt. Nos. 960 and 980) that were adverse to Apple in excluding certain evidence Apple intended to offer;

3. those portions of the Court's May 22, 2012 Opinion and Order adverse to Apple in which the Court struck Apple's damages expert and underlying damages theories (Dkt. No. 956); and

4. those portions of the Court's June 22, 2012 Opinion and Order adverse to Apple granting summary judgment against Apple as it relates to (1) Apple’s damages theories and (2) Apple’s entitlement to an injunction with respect to the Apple patents (Dkt. No. 1038).

Google and its subsidiary Motorola appeal:

1. those portions of the Court's summary judgment and claim construction orders that were adverse to Motorola (including without limitation Order of May 20, 2012 not appearing on the docket and Dkt. Nos. 176, 526, 556, 671, 691, 751, 747, 767, 826, 1005, 1038);

2. those portions of the Court's evidentiary orders (including without limitation Dkt. Nos. 771, 747, 803, 830, 900, 958, 956, 980) that were adverse to Motorola in excluding certain evidence Motorola intended to offer or in precluding Motorola from supplementing its expert reports or record evidence;

4. the Court's order denying Motorola's motion to dismiss or transfer this case (including without limitation Dkt. Nos. 66);

5. those portions of the Court's May 22, 2012 Opinion and Order adverse to Motorola in which the Court struck Motorola's damages expert and underlying damages theories (Dkt. No. 956); and

6. those portions of the Court's June 22, 2012 Opinion and Order adverse to Motorola granting summary judgment against Motorola as it relates to (1) Motorola's damages theories and (2) Motorola's entitlement to an injunction with respect to the Motorola patents (Dkt. No. 1038).

Judge Posner temporarily canceled Apple's trial in early June but decided to rehear the case two weeks later. In the follow-up hearing Apple once again sought an injunction against certain Motorola handsets that allegedly infringed on four patents regarding heuristics, UI elements and wireless technology.

Apple's case was in response to Motorola's own patent claims against the iPhone maker concerning certain wireless technology.

In Friday's appeals, both parties argued that a judgment should be handed down as required by law but the filings could instead result in separate trial cases for any or all of the highlighted issues.