Photo

Reuters Photojournalism

Our day's top images, in-depth photo essays and offbeat slices of life. See the best of Reuters photography.  See more | Photo caption 

Photo

Weird homes

Home is where the heart is, no matter what unusual form that home may take.  Slideshow 

Photo

The drone wars

The frontlines of America's covert drone program.  Slideshow 

Sponsored Links

Judge blocks Apple in Google smartphone war

Related Topics

An Apple logo is seen at the Apple Worldwide Developers Conference 2012 in San Francisco, California June 11, 2012. REUTERS/Stephen Lam

An Apple logo is seen at the Apple Worldwide Developers Conference 2012 in San Francisco, California June 11, 2012.

Credit: Reuters/Stephen Lam

Sat Jun 23, 2012 12:36am EDT

(Reuters) - A U.S. judge on Friday ruled that Apple Inc cannot pursue an injunction against Google's Motorola Mobility unit, effectively ending a key case for the iPhone maker in the smartphone patent wars.

The ruling came from Judge Richard Posner in Chicago federal court. He dismissed the litigation between Apple and Motorola Mobility with prejudice, meaning it can't be refiled.

The ruling is a blow for Apple, which had hoped a decisive ruling against Motorola would help it gain an upper hand in the smartphone market against Android.

"Apple is complaining that Motorola's phones as a whole ripped off the iPhone as a whole," Posner wrote. "But Motorola's desire to sell products that compete with the iPhone is a separate harm -— and a perfectly legal one -— from any harm caused by patent infringement."

Apple spokeswoman Kristin Huguet declined to comment on the ruling. Motorola Mobility spokeswoman Jennifer Erickson said the company was pleased that Posner dismissed Apple's case.

Both parties have the option to appeal Posner's ruling.

Motorola sued Apple in October 2010, a move that was widely seen as a pre-emptive strike against an imminent Apple lawsuit. Apple filed its own claims against Motorola the same month.

Posner issued a series of pre-trial rulings that eliminated nearly all of Motorola's patent claims against Apple from the prospective trial, while maintaining more of Apple's claims against Motorola. That meant Apple had more to gain in the trial, which had been set to start last week.

However, Posner canceled the trial earlier this month.

Apple had sought an injunction barring the sale of Motorola products using Apple's patented technology. But in Friday's ruling, Posner wrote that neither party is entitled to an injunction.

Since Motorola could design around the minor technological features covered by Apple's patents, an injunction would be an inappropriate windfall for Apple, Posner wrote.

Posner also said that Apple had not clearly demonstrated that Motorola phones caused a loss of consumer goodwill significant enough for an injunction.

"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 case is wild conjecture," Posner wrote.

In a bright spot for the iPhone maker, Posner also ruled that Motorola could not seek an injunction based on the one patent in the case that it was still asserting against Apple.

Motorola had pledged to license that patent - which covers an aspect of wireless communication - on fair and reasonable terms to other companies in exchange for having the technology adopted as an industry standard.

"How could it be permitted to enjoin Apple from using an invention that it contends Apple must use if it wants to make a cell phone," Posner wrote.

At a hearing earlier this week, Apple had argued that it would be satisfied with an injunction forcing Motorola to remove Apple's patented features within three months. But Posner found that proposal unworkable, in part because of the hardship in administering such an order.

"Because of the potential costs to Motorola and the federal judiciary I could not responsibly order injunctive relief in favor of Apple," he wrote in his ruling.

The case is Apple Inc. and NeXT Software Inc. V. Motorola Inc. and Motorola Mobility Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, no. 11-08540.

(Reporting by Dan Levine in Oakland, California and Jessica Dye in New York; Editing by Gary Hill and Jeremy Laurence)

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (5)
cachucky wrote:
This looks SOOOO good on Apple, it’s about time the courts stands up to Apple and says you lose, and it’s now over. Just because they own iverything, doesn’t mean they own the technoligy behind it. If it wasn’t for every major hardware maker in the world they wouldn’t be able to build ianything. And still, they continue to sue the hand that feeds them….insane.

Jun 22, 2012 12:50am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Newblog41 wrote:
You know your in trouble when you have to sue a competitor with a superior product from being able to sell it. Apple=Betamax.
Thank god for Android and thank you Google for giving us the right(option) to choose from multiple products that we want to buy as opposed to telling us what we can only buy. I personally like the fact that I can buy a superior product and pay a third of the cost with all the benefits of better technology and functionality. RIP Apple. Your “strategic inflection point” is upon you and you don’t even know it.IMHO

Jun 23, 2012 5:51pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
shadowL wrote:
It amazes me how people think the phone they own is the best phone for not only themselves, but the rest of the world. If you don’t like Apple products don’t buy them but to declare them inferior to all others is pretty self-centered. People are all different and one product does not fit all. It may fit your needs, and I hope it can but it will not fill others.

Jun 23, 2012 6:57pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.