German court bins Apple’s patent case against Motorola

Following a recent UK court decision, Apple has again lost in its attempt to have a competitor banned. The Dusseldorf court found that Motorola’s Xoom tablet doesn't infringe on Apple's Community design patent for the iPad while oddly upholding the validity of the actual design patent itself.

This outcome is just the latest in a series of setbacks for Apple, the company having failed so far to achieve any significant and permanent ban on its competitor’s products. And bans are what each and every case has attempted to extract, in Apple’s “thermonuclear” litigation programme against Android-powered devices. As Android has constantly increased its lead in market share over Apple’s iOS-powered iPhones, and although no single competitor tablet has enjoyed the success of say, Samsung’s Galaxy S III in the smartphone arena, the danger to the iPad’s media tablet market share is very real to Apple.

Apple's suit against Galaxy Tab bombs in UK

Following the recent loss gainst HTC, a UK court has thrown out Apple’s claim that its iPad design was illegally copied by Galaxy Tab maker, Samsung. The judge found that the design of Samsung’s three Tab devices doesn’t infringe Apple’s “registered” design, and ruled that consumers are unlikely to confuse them with the iPad.

Following the judgement, Samsung released a statement slamming Apple for its anticompetitive tactics, claiming… “Should Apple continue to make excessive legal claims in other countries based on such generic designs, innovation in the industry could be harmed and consumer choice unduly limited”.

Brit court rules Apple patents invalid – HTC wins

In handing down a massive defeat to Apple in a watershed patent tussle, British Judge Christopher Floyd ruled that HTC’s devices don’t infringe the four patents charged by the Cupertino-based iDevice vendor. The judge found in fact that three of the four patents are actually invalid. This is a huge blow to Apple, which had seen some temporary judgments go its way in other jurisdictions on its patent claims.

Besides the ludicrous “slide to unlock” farce, today’s verdict also affected Apple’s patents for scrolling through images, character set selection, and multi-touch capability. These patents were arguably Apple’s most potentially-damaging weapons in the global IP wars the company started with Android, and by invalidating them, the British court has effectively gutted the iPhone maker’s campaign to litigate its competitors out of the UK market.

Apple ban on HTC rejected by ITC

Earlier this year, Apple was successful in a patent suit that resulted in HTC removing some allegedly infringing functions from its handsets in order to continue selling in the US. The US Customs department subsequently stopped imports at the border for several days while they examined HTC’s One series smartphones for compliance with the court-ordered changes before releasing them into the country. So that’s OK then. Isn’t it?

The world’s most litigious corporation had other ideas. In June, Apple filed a complaint accusing HTC of lying to customs in order to skirt the exclusion order. It was Apple’s contention that HTC had not made the changes specified in the ban order, and was thus in breach of the court’s dictate.

Apple succeeds in getting Google Nexus banned [u]

Following a Friday hearing before Judge Lucy Koh at the Californial District Court in San Jose, Samsung’s Google Nexus smartphone has been temporarily banned in the US. Apple was successful in convincing the Judge that its claims of patent infringement were likely to succeed based primarily on the validity of the so-called “Siri” patent. Although there are four patents at issue, the Judge has issued the temporary injunction based on the one she believes may be costing Apple sales of its flagship iPhone 4S.

While the Galaxy nexus is not Samsung’s biggest seller, the fact that it’s the latest “vanilla” development device, designed and built with input from Google, gives it an importance that exceeds its mere sales numbers. Judge Koh, in her ruling on the injunction, stated… "Apple has clearly shown that it is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary injunctive relief”.

However, she also acknowledged that Samsung was definitely going to suffer irreparable harm as a result of her agreeing to the injunction, and ordered Apple to post bond to the tune of US$96 million as compensation for lost sales should the forthcoming patent trial find Samsung was not infringing Apple’s patents.

Apple wins temporary ban on Tab 10.1 in the US

Judge Lucy Koh has ruled in advance of the scheduled hearing over Apple’s request for a ban on Samsung’s Galaxy Tab 10.1. 

Her decision, released in the last hour, has followed the appeals court determination that she revisit her previous finding that a temporary injunction was unjustified on the basis that the patent allegedly infringed upon was likely to be found valid, contradicting Judge Koh’s view of that same patent.

The patent in question is the “design” one that's commonly known as “black rectangle with rounded corners” in the blogosphere. Assuming that the patent’s validity would be upheld, the appeals court found that the District Court Judge, having acknowledged Samsung to have infringed it by marketing a device “virtually indistinguishable” from Apple’s iPad, should reconsider the case for injunctive relief.

Apple loses big time in US patent battle

In a massive defeat for Apple and a mixed victory for Motorola, respected US jurist Richard Posner dismissed the attempted handset ban ‘with prejudice’.

Judge Richard Posner has dismissed Apple’s further legal attempt to ban numerous Motorola smartphones in the US market, labeling the action “against the public interest”. In a case that dates back to 2010, Apple had tried to ban its rival’s handsets, claiming the patents Motorola Mobile allegedly infringed upon were causing the iDevice vendor “harm”.

Apple unlikely to get Motorola banned in US

Stating that an order barring the sale of Motorola phones could have "catastrophic effects" for the mobile marketplace, Judge Richard Posner has given Apple his strongest hint yet that the iDevice maker’s attempt to have a ban enforced on a number of Motorola handsets is doomed.

Judge Posner had previously stated his view that such an injunction would not be in the public interest. In response to the jurist’s lack of empathy toward Apple’s case for injunctive relief, Apple’s attorney, in an apparent attempt to appear more conciliatory, resorted to the position that an injunction might alternatively force removal of the technologies that it alleges Motorola has infringed, within three months.

Apple vs Motorola patent case back on

Despite his earlier tentative decision to end the patent action in a Chicago court, Judge Posner changed his mind and has confirmed he will hear Apple’s plea for injunctive relief against several Motorola mobile phones.

The judge’s earlier pronouncement was that any injunction would be contrary to the public interest, effectively scuppering Apple’s attempt to have its competitor’s devices banned in the US. Apple immediately objected to that ruling, and after weighing up the options and consequences, Judge Posner has agreed to allow the two sides to make their case for injunctions.

Apple's attempt to ban US Galaxy S III launch fails

In an admission that it fears for its iPhone’s continued success in the marketplace, Apple pleaded with a Californian court to prevent the Samsung Galaxy S III launching in the US. Citing the well publicized nine million plus pre-orders for Samsung’s latest, Apple’s legal team requested leave to apply for TRO injunctive relief, a ban order that they hoped would be in place prior to the Galaxy S III’s simultaneous launch across virtually all the US carriers.

A Temporary Restraining Order seems to be an emergency procedure, able to be invoked where a formal injunction has already been sought and the object of that injunction is likely to go on sale despite the legal process in train. The Judge would then rule on whether it was reasonable for the party requesting the injunction to expect their action to succeed.

Apple attempts to have Galaxy S III banned in USA

Alarmed by reports of more than 9 million pre-orders of Samsung’s spectacularly popular and in-demand Galaxy S III, and by its imminent launch in the US, Apple has declared its intention to seek an injunction against the handset. Before the San Diego California court, Apple’s lawyers announced that the company would likely file for injunctive relief, in effect a ban on US sales of the S3, on Friday.

Judge cancels latest patent trial brought by Apple against Motorola

Judge Richard A Posner has cancelled the trial, originally set down for June 11, citing Apple’s inability to convince the court that it would be able to prove injury. The action was taken by Apple against one of its Android-using competitors, Motorola Mobility, accusing the cellphone pioneer of infringing four patents. Motorola in turn had been accusing Apple of infringing on its own patents.

Judge Posner’s decision means that today’s pre-trial hearing is the final one that pertains to the current action, and if either Apple or Motorola want the jurist’s decision overturned, then they will be forced to take their gripes to the US Court of Appeal. If neither can prevail there, then a totally new lawsuit would be required.

Apple fails to get US injunction against the Galaxy Tab 10.1

Having previously failed in a California district court to have Samsung’s Galaxy Tab 10.1 banned for alleged patent infringement, Apple applied to the US Court of Appeals in Washington to overturn the decision and thus obtain a permanent ban of the iPad competitor. The appeals court found that a single element of Apple’s case, that of patent “D889”, might warrant reconsideration and directed Judge Lucy Koh to do so.

Editorial: Oracle loses big stakes gamble against Android

Following its recent patent infringement loss against Google in a Californian court action, Oracle has now followed that failure with loss of its copyright claims in the same suit as well.

Judge Alsup, arguably the most respected juror of his generation, has ruled that the Java APIs at issue are not copyrightable, effectively handing Oracle a legal black eye. The conclusion of this action, some two years after its commencement, raises the question as to the motives of Oracle in bringing it to court in the first place given that the trial proper became a switch in importance from the alleged infringement of dozens of patents, to a skirmish about copyright of API code in what is supposedly a "free to use" programming language.

Jury rejects Oracle’s suit against Google in patent spat

In what was unlikely to surprise those paying attention, and as predicted by AndroidNZ two weeks ago, Oracle’s attempt to extort six billion dollars from Google over Android’s supposed infringement of Java patents has been rejected by the jury in the long-running case.

As a result, there will be no penalty phase in the trial, and Oracle will have to resort to appeal to try to salvage something from a litigation that must surely have already cost the company many hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees, perhaps millions.

Google wants penalty phase dropped in Oracle's lawsuit

Google is expected to file a motion to have the third phase of the patent action the company is currently fighting, dropped from the case.

If you’ve recently returned from some interplanetary travel or have just awoken from a two year slumber, you may not be aware that Oracle, owner of Java, has sued Google over its use of certain Java code in the Android operating system.