Feeds

Apple's iPhone did not rip off Googorola's wireless patent – US appeal judges

Techno-babble-laden design for app updates and messages fails to impress

Security for virtualized datacentres

A US appeals court has upheld a decision by the International Trade Commission (ITC) that Apple's iPhone does not infringe a patent owned by Google's Motorola Mobility division.

The protected technology in question was Motorola Mobility's US Patent No. 6,272,333, which describes a "method and apparatus in a wireless communication system for controlling a delivery of data." Drilling into the gobbledegook, it appears to be a system that keeps software installed on devices up to date and thus compatible with the phone network for sending and receiving messages and other information.

Since 2010, Motorola has argued that Apple's iPhone designs infringe upon as many as seven of its patents. Regulators have steadily whittled down that list since then, however, even going as far as to invalidate one of the patents on the grounds that the inventions it described were too obvious.

In the latest US Federal Appeals Court ruling [PDF], issued today, a panel of three circuit judges agreed with the ITC's decision that Motorola hadn't presented enough evidence to support a claim of infringement by Apple.

The decision is the latest victory for Cupertino in its long-running global patent war against Google's Android mobile OS and the handset makers who license it to build smartphones. In November, a jury awarded Apple $929m in damages from Samsung for infringing iPhone-related patents, and Apple has brought a second suit against the South Korean firm that's scheduled to go to trial in March.

Meanwhile, Motorola's attempts to assert its own patents against Apple have borne little fruit. With this latest ruling, all six of Motorola's claims against the fruity firm in the US have been effectively invalidated. What's more, the European Commission ruled last year that Motorola's use of its standards-essential patents in Europe was likely in violation of EU antitrust laws.

Although Motorola's patent offensive against Apple has been underway since at least 2010, Google took on the burden of litigating the cases when it acquired Motorola Mobility for $12.5bn in 2012.

In a statement to Reuters on Friday, Google said, "We're disappointed in this decision and are evaluating our options." Apple, on the other hand, declined to comment. ®

Top 5 reasons to deploy VMware with Tegile

More from The Register

next story
Let it go, Steve: Ballmer bans iPads from his LA Clippers b-ball team
Can you imagine the scene? 'Hey guys, it's your new owner – WTF is that on your desk?'
How the FLAC do I tell MP3s from lossless audio?
Can you hear the difference? Can anyone?
iPAD-FONDLING fanboi sparks SECURITY ALERT at Sydney airport
Breaches screening rules cos Apple SCREEN ROOLZ, ok?
Apple's new iPhone 6 vulnerable to last year's TouchID fingerprint hack
But unsophisticated thieves need not attempt this trick
The British Museum plonks digital bricks on world of Minecraft
Institution confirms it's cool with joining the blocky universe
Turn OFF your phone or WE'LL ALL DI... live? Europe OKs mobes, tabs non-stop on flights
Airlines given green light to allow gate-to-gate jibber-jabber
prev story

Whitepapers

Providing a secure and efficient Helpdesk
A single remote control platform for user support is be key to providing an efficient helpdesk. Retain full control over the way in which screen and keystroke data is transmitted.
Intelligent flash storage arrays
Tegile Intelligent Storage Arrays with IntelliFlash helps IT boost storage utilization and effciency while delivering unmatched storage savings and performance.
Beginner's guide to SSL certificates
De-mystify the technology involved and give you the information you need to make the best decision when considering your online security options.
Security for virtualized datacentres
Legacy security solutions are inefficient due to the architectural differences between physical and virtual environments.
Secure remote control for conventional and virtual desktops
Balancing user privacy and privileged access, in accordance with compliance frameworks and legislation. Evaluating any potential remote control choice.