US agency backs Apple in patent battle

Last updated 14:35 06/12/2012

Relevant offers

Gadgets

Stagefright makes tech journalist says goodbye to Android forever Nokia returns to innovation with virtual reality camera Ozo Using a candle to charge your smartphone Oculus reboots 3D films with virtual reality-based Henry Easy-to-use 3D Solo 'smart drone' coming to New Zealand Once-ridiculed EMDrive may in fact be the future of space travel Faulty phone charger may have sparked Wellington house fire Hackers can use a text to infiltrate your Android smartphone Elon Musk and Steve Wozniak lead UN petition to ban artifically intelligent killing machines Beijing police shut down massive iPhone counterfeiting operation

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