Motorola’s patent-related legal battles, which have achieved new profile because they have drawn new owner Google directly into the fray, have been at the center of the past week’s developments, and like Samsung the week before, the vendor has been seen mixed results.
It scored a partial victory against Apple in Germany, in a case which revolves around the most controversial type of IPR being deployed in this war, the design patents. A German court ruled that the Google unit’s Xoom tablet did not infringe on Apple’s iPad design patents, which have also been cited against the Samsung Galaxy Tab with mixed results.
However, the Dusseldorf court rejected Motorola’s own claim that the Apple design patent was actually invalid, highlighting once more the controversy over the use of this form of intellectual property, which refers to shape and appearance rather than technology.
Apple had sued Motorola for allegedly infringing three iPad designs with the Xoom and had sought injunctions against the device across Europe. During two previous hearings, presiding judge Johanna Brueckner-Hofmann seemed favourable to Motorola and impatient of the use of design patents. In March she said the evenly bent back, and the shaped edges on the front of the Xoom, were enough to give it an individual character.
Since both parties lost their respective claims, they will share the costs, though Apple will pay the larger share (two-thirds). Apple has previously had better fortune in Dusseldorf, where it gained bans against two Samsung tablets for the German market last year (Samsung subsequently amended the design). The iPad maker is also seeking injunctions against two more Samsung slates in Dusseldorf, and is suing both Motorola and Samsung in another German location, in Mannheim, over a multitouch patent.
In the US, the situation was more problematic for Motorola, where it has been racing to avoid a ban on US sales of some smartphones ‘ this time as a result of a fight with Microsoft. The Google unit’s last hope of an injunction taking force ‘ bar a reversal by the president – is to convince US Customs it has produced a workaround for the Microsoft patent.
‘Motorola has taken proactive measures to ensure that our industry leading smartphones remain available to consumers in the US,’ the company said in a statement, but offered no details of whether it had amended the products concerned. Unlike the Xoom cases, which affect a product that has limited impact on actual revenues, this action covers some key models including the Droid 2, Droid X, Cliq XT, Devour and Backflip.
The case revolves around Microsoft’s ActiveSync technology and affects any smartphone made in Asia and imported into the US. The Windows giant won an ITC ruling in May against Motorola. Unlike Apple, Microsoft’s primary aim has not been to ban devices that run Android, but to extract royalties for the IPR it holds in that operating system ‘ and thereby to weaken the appeal of the ‘free’ OS to vendors. It has signed licensing deals with many major players, including Samsung, but Motorola has been a hold-out ‘ and has its own series of cases against Microsoft, citing standards-essential H.264 codec technology as used in Windows, Xbox and other products. In that case, Microsoft is arguing that Motorola has broken its commitment to license essential IPR on a ‘Frand’ (fair reasonable and non-discriminatory) basis.
As for the US case, the handset maker had previously licensed ActiveSync, says Microsoft, but the contract expired in 2007. ‘Microsoft brought this case only after Motorola stopped licensing our intellectual property but continued to use our inventions in its products,’ said deputy general counsel David Howard in a statement. ‘It’s unfortunate we’ve been forced to pursue legal action, but the solution for Motorola remains licensing our intellectual property at market rates as most other Android manufacturers have already done.’
Given the cut-throat rivalry between Apple and Samsung, cases involving those two vendors tend to gain the most attention. After a rush of activity earlier in the month, this week’s main development was an order from a UK High Court judge that Apple must publicize the judgement that Samsung did not copy iPad design patents. Judge Colin Birss – who had denied Apple’s UK bid for an injunction against the Galaxy Tab, saying it was visibly ‘not as cool as the iPad – ordered the iPhone maker to publish a notice on its website (to remain for six months) and in UK newspapers highlighting the July 9 court ruling.
The decision was another reflection of many judges’ impatience with the aggressive use of design patents, though Apple attorney Richard Hacon protested that the order is forcing the firm to publish ‘an advertisement’ for its rival, which is prejudicial to the company. Birss did not, however, grant Samsung’s application for a ban on Apple making public statements that the Galaxy infringed its design rights. ‘They are entitled to their opinion that the judgment is not correct,’ he said.
HTC is also engaged in a range of battles with Apple and has filed its latest claims, citing two patents it recently bought from Hewlett-Packard. The counterclaims were filed in the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida, alleging that a wide range of Apple products (most Mac, MacBook, iPhone and iPad models) infringe on a patent related to installing network services in an embedded server. It also claims Apple’s Remote Desktop and Profile Management infringe on a second patent from HP, concerned with central network management.