Connecting decision makers to a dynamic network of information, people and ideas, Bloomberg quickly and accurately delivers business and financial information, news and insight around the world.
+1 212 318 2000
Europe, Middle East, & Africa
+44 20 7330 7500
+65 6212 1000
By Tony Dutra
Jan. 14 --Apple Inc.'s noninfringement of Motorola Mobility LLC's patent on mobile phone application push technology was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Jan. 10 in a nonprecedential opinion (Motorola Mobility LLC v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, Fed. Cir., No. 2012-1666, 1/10/14).
Motorola owns a patent (U.S. Patent No. 6,272,333) relating to controlling delivery of data to a mobile phone in typical “push” applications, where updated information is sent without requiring an end user request. The dispute with Apple in the instant case before the International Trade Commission, No. 337-TA-745, was in how updates on the accessibility of the mobile phone--referred to as a “subscriber unit”--for receipt of push information is communicated.
The ITC ruled that Apple's accused devices did not infringe claim 12 of the '333 patent and that Motorola had not established the technical prong of the Section 337 domestic industry requirement, 19 U.S.C. §1337(a)(2), by relying on its Droid 2 product.
The Federal Circuit, in an opinion by Judge Jimmie V. Reyna, affirmed the noninfringement decision in a fact-specific analysis of the claim scope and Apple's specific implementation of accessibility updates.
“Motorola's infringement theory necessarily relies on two changes in accessibility that occur on the accused devices--one change associated with deletion of a push-enabled application and a different change in accessibility regarding cancellation of push notifications,” the court said. “This theory is not consistent with the claim's limitations.”
As to the technical prong, the court concluded that the Droid 2 has the same relevant features as the accused Apple devices, and if the Apple devices do not infringe claim 12, then the Droid 2 cannot be said to practice claim 12.
Judges Sharon Prost and William C. Bryson joined the opinion.
Edward J. DeFranco of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, New York, represented Motorola. Mark S. Davies of Orrick, Herrington& Sutcliffe LLP, Washington, D.C., represented Apple. Megan M. Valentine of the ITC's Office of the General Counsel represented the commission.
To contact the reporter on this story: Tony Dutra in Washington at email@example.com
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Naresh Sritharan at firstname.lastname@example.org
All Bloomberg BNA treatises are available on standing order, which ensures you will always receive the most current edition of the book or supplement of the title you have ordered from Bloomberg BNA’s book division. As soon as a new supplement or edition is published (usually annually) for a title you’ve previously purchased and requested to be placed on standing order, we’ll ship it to you to review for 30 days without any obligation. During this period, you can either (a) honor the invoice and receive a 5% discount (in addition to any other discounts you may qualify for) off the then-current price of the update, plus shipping and handling or (b) return the book(s), in which case, your invoice will be cancelled upon receipt of the book(s). Call us for a prepaid UPS label for your return. It’s as simple and easy as that. Most importantly, standing orders mean you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you’re relying on. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.960.1220 or by sending an email to email@example.com.
Put me on standing order at a 5% discount off list price of all future updates, in addition to any other discounts I may quality for. (Returnable within 30 days.)
Notify me when updates are available (No standing order will be created).