Federal Circuit affirms Apple’s iPhones do not infringe Google’s patent
Managing IP is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2024

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Federal Circuit affirms Apple’s iPhones do not infringe Google’s patent

The US Federal Circuit has upheld a decision by the country’s International Trade Commission (ITC) which ruled that Apple’s iPhones do not violate a Google patent

In a ruling today, the Federal Circuit ruled that Apple did not infringe on a patent owned by Motorola Mobility, which was acquired by Google when it purchased Motorola for $12 billion in a deal announced in August 2011.

Motorola filed a complaint with the ITC in November 2010, which unsuccessfully argued that Apple had infringed six patents.

In April 2013, the ITC ruled in Apple’s favor. Google’s appeal to the Federal Circuit concerned only US Patent No. 6,272,333, relating to technology controlling the delivery of data from a fixed portion of a wireless communication system to a subscriber unit.

"We're disappointed in this decision and are evaluating our options," Motorola said in a statement.

more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Lippes Mathias has hired three partners and a counsel from Offit Kurman
External counsel for automotive companies explain how trends such as AI and vehicle connectivity are affecting their practices and reveal what their clients are prioritising
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis coverage from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
The winners of the awards will be revealed at a gala dinner in New York City on April 25
Counsel debate the potential outcome of SCOTUS’s latest copyright case after justices questioned whether they should dismiss it
Each week Managing IP speaks to a different IP lawyer about their life and career
The small Düsseldorf firm is making a big impact in the UPC. Founding partner Christof Augenstein explains why
The court criticised Oppo’s attempts to delay proceedings and imposed a penalty, adding that the Chinese company may need to pay more if the trial isn’t concluded this year
Miguel Hernandez explains how he secured victory for baby care company Naterra in his first oral argument before the Federal Circuit
The UPC judges are wrong – restricting access to court documents, and making parties appoint a lawyer only to have a chance of seeing them, is madness
Gift this article