US agency backs Apple in patent battle

Last updated 14:35 06/12/2012

Relevant offers

Gadgets

A $23,000 smartphone for the security conscious Montblanc launches a smartwatch. Here's why it matters Why Samsung’s name for its personal assistant may twist quite a few tongues Samsung's Galaxy 8 phone will convert into a desktop computer, leaks reveal Apple unveils updated iPad with lowest-ever price and new red iPhones What you should think about before buying Apple's cheaper iPad and red iPhone British man electrocuted while using charging iPhone in the bath Australian schoolgirl suffers burns to her leg after phone explodes in lap Review: Huawei Mate 9 Pro Little-known tips and tricks for Android phones

Google unit Motorola Mobility is not entitled to ask a court to stop the sale of Apple iPhones and iPads that it says infringe on a patent that is essential to wireless technology, the US Federal Trade Commission said on Wednesday.

In June, Judge Richard Posner in Chicago threw out cases that Motorola, now owned by Google, and Apple had filed against each other claiming patent infringement. Both companies appealed.

In rejecting the Google case, Posner barred the company from seeking to stop iPhone sales because the patent in question was a standard essential patent.

This means that Motorola Mobility had pledged to license it on fair and reasonable terms to other companies in exchange for having the technology adopted as a wireless industry standard.

Standard essential patents, or SEPs, are treated differently because they are critical to ensuring that devices made by different companies work together.

Google appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The FTC said in its court filing that Posner had ruled correctly.

The commission, which has previously argued against courts banning products because they infringe essential patents, reiterated that position on Wednesday.

"Patent hold-up risks harming competition, innovation, and consumers because it allows a patentee to be rewarded not based on the competitive value of its technology, but based on the infringer's costs to switch to a non-infringing alternative when an injunction is issued," the commission wrote in its brief.

The case is Apple Inc and NeXT Software Inc V Motorola Inc and Motorola Mobility Inc, in the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, no. 2012-1548, 2012-1549.

Ad Feedback

- Reuters

Comments

Special offers

Featured Promotions

Sponsored Content