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

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

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 SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

A new transatlantic firm under the name of Winston Taylor is expected to go live in May 2026, and is likely to have a significant impact on Europe’s IP market
Geoff Steward and Rebecca Newman of Addleshaw Goddard explain how they secured victory in a rare ‘genericide’ case and why the work went beyond the courtroom
Nancy Frandsen looks back on her career, from answering a paralegal advert to expanding RCCB’s ‘entrepreneurial’ IP practice as a partner
The tie-up could result in the firm’s German and France-based teams, which both have strong UPC expertise, becoming independent
News of a slowdown in the UK’s clean energy IP landscape and an EPO report on unitary patent uptake were also among the top talking points
Price hikes at ‘big law’ firms are pushing some clients toward boutiques that offer predictable fees, specialised expertise, and a model built around prioritising IP
The Australian side, in particular, can benefit by capitalising on its independent status to bring in more work from Western countries while still working with its former Chinese partner
Koen Bijvank of Brinkhof and Johannes Heselberger of Bardehle Pagenberg discuss the Amgen v Sanofi case and why it will be cited frequently
View the official winners of the 2025 Social Impact EMEA Awards
King & Wood Mallesons will break into two entities, 14 years after a merger between a Chinese and an Australian firm created the combined outfit
Gift this article