Apple Inc. appeals ITC investigation 337-TA-750
On April 10, 2012, the
International Trade Commission issued the opinion on (Inv. No. 337-TA-750)
which stated that there no violation of Section 337 in Certain Mobile Devices,
and Related Software. Recently, Apple
Inc. asked a U.S. appeals court to reinstate patent-infringement claims it
filed against Google Inc. (GOOG)’s Motorola Mobility unit over touch-screen
technology used in mobile phones.
Apple layer Joshua Rosenkranz of
San Francisco told the three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit in Washington that the patent (touch-screen patent) was for “a key
invention and it drove the iPhone phenomenon and later the iPad. It claims something that no one had ever
done.”
Apple is appealing a U.S.
International Trade Commission decision over transparent screens that can sense
multiple touches in different locations, enabling users to operate a mobile
phone by touching or swiping its screen.
Motorola Mobility persuaded the agency to rule that Apple’s patent
7,663,607 was invalid and its patent 7,812,828 wasn’t infringed. Commission lawyer Megan Valentine defended
the agency’s decision, saying the Apple multitouch invention was very similar
to earlier technology, including patent 7,372,455 which was issued to an
Israeli company in 2008, and a Sony Corp. paper for a product called
SmartSkin. “The algorithms are nearly
identical in the two patents,” she told the panel. She also defended the
commission’s finding that the commercial success of the iPhone wasn’t proof of
the uniqueness of the patented invention.
The case is Apple Inc. (AAPL) v.
ITC, 12-1338, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Washington). The
ITC case is In the Matter of Mobile Devices and Related Software, 337-TA-750,
U.S. International Trade Commission (Washington).
I find myself wondering as to who owns the original patent on touch screen technology and if that individual would be able to assert their patent on all subsequent touch screen phones.
ReplyDeleteI think this is a prime example of what constitutes "two wrongs don't make a right." Assuming if everyone is guilty, is Google relieved of blame of patent infringement on Apple if Apple's patent originated from dubious sources? Does that make Apple's claim weaker? Either way, this is a case to follow.
ReplyDelete-James Maa