Appeals court kicks back USITC decision in Apple case against Motorola

The court orders the commission to reexamine its decision in rulings that Motorola didn't infringe touchscreen patents

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has given Apple new life in its patent claims against Google-owned Motorola Mobility.

The court on Wednesday partially vacated a March 2012 U.S. International Trade Commission decision that Motorola did not infringe three touchscreen-related patents held by Apple. The court has ordered the USITC to reexamine its decision in two of the three patents, patent No. 7,663,607 on a multipoint touchscreen, and patent No. 7,812,828 on an ellipse fitting for multitouch surfaces.

The court declined to reverse the USITC's decision on seven Apple claims related to the '607 patent, but remanded the case in one claim.

Representatives of Google and Apple didn't immediately respond to requests for comments on the court's decision.

Apple has asked the USITC to ban the import of some Motorola smartphones into the U.S., and the court's decision resurrects that possibility.

"Today's remand decision gives Apple another opportunity to win a U.S. import ban against the Google subsidiary's Android-based devices, which would have the Android ecosystem at large concerned," patent blogger Florian Mueller wrote.

Motorola's new Moto X smartphone may not be affected by an import ban because it is assembled in the U.S., Mueller noted.

The USITC mistakenly viewed some patents as prior art for the Apple patents and that the technology described in Apple's '607 was obvious, Judge Kimberly Moore wrote in the court's decision. The USITC failed to consider more factors beyond obviousness when it ruled that Motorola had not infringed that patent, and it may have applied the obviousness test in hindsight, she wrote.

"To be clear, we conclude that the ITC fact findings regarding the scope and content of the prior art ... are supported by substantial evidence," Moore wrote. "We remand so the ITC can consider that evidence in conjunction with the evidence of secondary considerations and determine in the first instance whether [the patent] would have been obvious to one of skill in the art at the time of the invention."

Grant Gross covers technology and telecom policy in the U.S. government for The IDG News Service. Follow Grant on Twitter at GrantGross. Grant's e-mail address is grant_gross@idg.com.

Tags Kimberly MoorelegalFlorian MuellerpatentsmartphonesMotorola MobilityU.S. International Trade CommissionU.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal CircuitAppleGoogleconsumer electronicsintellectual property

Recommended

Keep up with the latest tech news, reviews and previews by subscribing to the Good Gear Guide newsletter.

Grant Gross

IDG News Service

Comments

Comments are now closed.

Most Popular Reviews

Follow Us

Best Deals on GoodGearGuide

Shopping.com

Latest News Articles

Resources

GGG Evaluation Team

Kathy Cassidy

STYLISTIC Q702

First impression on unpacking the Q702 test unit was the solid feel and clean, minimalist styling.

Anthony Grifoni

STYLISTIC Q572

For work use, Microsoft Word and Excel programs pre-installed on the device are adequate for preparing short documents.

Steph Mundell

LIFEBOOK UH574

The Fujitsu LifeBook UH574 allowed for great mobility without being obnoxiously heavy or clunky. Its twelve hours of battery life did not disappoint.

Andrew Mitsi

STYLISTIC Q702

The screen was particularly good. It is bright and visible from most angles, however heat is an issue, particularly around the Windows button on the front, and on the back where the battery housing is located.

Simon Harriott

STYLISTIC Q702

My first impression after unboxing the Q702 is that it is a nice looking unit. Styling is somewhat minimalist but very effective. The tablet part, once detached, has a nice weight, and no buttons or switches are located in awkward or intrusive positions.

Latest Jobs

Don’t have an account? Sign up here

Don't have an account? Sign up now

Forgot password?