<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd">
<channel>
<title>Engadget</title>
<link>http://www.engadget.com</link>
<description>Engadget</description>

<language>en-us</language>
<copyright>Copyright 2012 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only.</copyright>
<generator>Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/</generator><item><title><![CDATA[Cisco sues TiVo to nullify four DVR patents, claims TiVo's just a big meanie]]></title><link>http://www.engadget.com/2012/06/01/cisco-sues-tivo-to-nullify-four-dvr-patents/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.engadget.com/2012/06/01/cisco-sues-tivo-to-nullify-four-dvr-patents/</guid><comments>http://www.engadget.com/2012/06/01/cisco-sues-tivo-to-nullify-four-dvr-patents/#comments</comments><description><![CDATA[<p> <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/06/01/cisco-sues-tivo-to-nullify-four-dvr-patents/"><img alt="TiVo frown" src="http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2010/05/sad-tivo.jpg" style="width: 126px; height: 200px; border-width: 0px; border-style: solid; margin: 12px 16px; float: right;" /></a>TiVo is known for being <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/03/26/tivo-sues-twc-motorola-mobility/">more than a bit aggressive</a> in claiming patent rights for its DVRs, and Cisco has apparently had the last straw.  <a href="http://www.engadget.com/tag/ScientificAtlanta/">Scientific Atlanta's</a> owner has sued TiVo this week in an attempt to negate four patents that TiVo is allegedly using to bully Cisco and other set-top box makers.  As long as those patents are active or usable against others, TiVo will refuse to give a fair license, Cisco says -- leaving competitors with little choice but to either agree to a costly settlement or risk a ban.  Before championing Cisco as the underdog, remember that it's likely counting on a large patent library as a Sword of Damocles over TiVo's head that could fall if TiVo decides on a countersuit.  Regardless of the strategic maneuvering, there's no doubt that Cisco is hoping to avoid a lawsuit on the scale of the <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2011/05/02/dish-network-will-pay-tivo-500-million-to-settle-dvr-lawsuit/">epic-length EchoStar case</a>.</p><p style="padding:5px;background:#ddd;border:1px solid #ccc;clear:both;"><a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/06/01/cisco-sues-tivo-to-nullify-four-dvr-patents/">Cisco sues TiVo to nullify four DVR patents, claims TiVo's just a big meanie</a> originally appeared on <a href="http://www.engadget.com">Engadget</a> on Fri, 01 Jun 2012 13:29:00 EST.  Please see our <a href="http://www.weblogsinc.com/feed-terms/">terms for use of feeds</a>.</p><h6 style="clear: both; padding: 8px 0 0 0; height: 2px; font-size: 1px; border: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0;"></h6><a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/06/01/cisco-sues-tivo-to-nullify-four-dvr-patents/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent link to this entry">Permalink</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.engadget.com/forward/20249664/" title="Send this entry to a friend via email">Email this</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/06/01/cisco-sues-tivo-to-nullify-four-dvr-patents/#comments" title="View reader comments on this entry">Comments</a>]]></description><category>cisco</category><category>digital video recorder</category><category>DigitalVideoRecorder</category><category>dvr</category><category>echostar</category><category>hdpostcross</category><category>home entertainment</category><category>HomeEntertainment</category><category>lawsuit</category><category>lawsuits</category><category>patent</category><category>patent suit</category><category>patents</category><category>PatentSuit</category><category>scientific atlanta</category><category>ScientificAtlanta</category><category>tivo</category><dc:creator><![CDATA[Jon Fingas]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 01 Jun 2012 13:29:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Jury issues verdict in Android suit, finds that Google doesn't infringe Oracle patents]]></title><link>http://www.engadget.com/2012/05/23/jury-google-oracle/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.engadget.com/2012/05/23/jury-google-oracle/</guid><comments>http://www.engadget.com/2012/05/23/jury-google-oracle/#comments</comments><description><![CDATA[<p style="text-align: center;"> <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/05/23/jury-google-oracle/"><img alt="Image" height="376" src="http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2012/05/oracle-v-google-1308942960.jpg" style="margin:4px" width="593" /></a></p><p> It appears that the jury has come to a conclusion in the <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/04/02/oracle-and-google-get-a-trial-date-april-16th-is-the-start-of-a/">Oracle v. Google trial</a>, determining that Android does not infringe Oracle patents. Judge William Alsup of the US District Court for Northern California exonerated the search giant following a trial that lasted three weeks, ruling that Google did not infringe on six claims in US Patent RE38,104, along two claims in US Patent 6,061,520. Jurors were dismissed following today's ruling, with the trial's damages phase reportedly set to begin on Tuesday. According to <em>The Verge</em>, the jury did determine that Google was responsible for two counts of minor copyright infringement, relating to the order of Java APIs and several lines of rangeCheck code, which could be matched with a maximum penalty of $150,000 for each count. Regardless, it appears that the lawsuit, which <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/12/oracle-sues-google-over-java-patent-infringement-in-android/">dates back to 2010</a>, when Oracle filed against Google for copyright and patent infringement related to Sun's Java code, could finally be coming to a close.</p><p style="padding:5px;background:#ddd;border:1px solid #ccc;clear:both;"><a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/05/23/jury-google-oracle/">Jury issues verdict in Android suit, finds that Google doesn't infringe Oracle patents</a> originally appeared on <a href="http://www.engadget.com">Engadget</a> on Wed, 23 May 2012 14:05:00 EST.  Please see our <a href="http://www.weblogsinc.com/feed-terms/">terms for use of feeds</a>.</p><h6 style="clear: both; padding: 8px 0 0 0; height: 2px; font-size: 1px; border: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0;"></h6><a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/05/23/jury-google-oracle/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent link to this entry">Permalink</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.engadget.com/forward/20243704/" title="Send this entry to a friend via email">Email this</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/05/23/jury-google-oracle/#comments" title="View reader comments on this entry">Comments</a>]]></description><category>android</category><category>copyright</category><category>copyright infringement</category><category>CopyrightInfringement</category><category>district court</category><category>DistrictCourt</category><category>google</category><category>ip</category><category>java</category><category>judgment</category><category>law</category><category>lawsuit</category><category>lawsuits</category><category>legal</category><category>mobilepostcross</category><category>oracle</category><category>patent</category><category>patent infringement</category><category>PatentInfringement</category><category>ruling</category><category>us district court</category><category>UsDistrictCourt</category><dc:creator><![CDATA[Zach Honig]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 23 May 2012 14:05:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Samsung: 'Lawyers didn't design the Galaxy S III']]></title><link>http://www.engadget.com/2012/05/22/samsung-lawyers-galaxy-s-iii-design/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.engadget.com/2012/05/22/samsung-lawyers-galaxy-s-iii-design/</guid><comments>http://www.engadget.com/2012/05/22/samsung-lawyers-galaxy-s-iii-design/#comments</comments><description><![CDATA[<p style="text-align: center;"> <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/05/22/samsung-lawyers-galaxy-s-iii-design/"><img alt="Image" height="327" src="http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2012/05/afinch.jpg" style="margin:4px" width="600" /></a></p><p> <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/05/20/samsung-chief-says-open-to-cross-licensing-deal-with-apple/">Samsung</a> design VP Chang Dong-hoon has refuted accusations that the <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/05/03/samsung-galaxy-s-iii-preview-hands-on/">Galaxy S III</a> was designed "by lawyers." Responding to the reports that stated the new handset was tweaked to circumvent deliberate <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2011/04/20/apple-sues-samsung-heres-the-deal/">trade dress claims</a> made by Cupertino in its <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2011/04/18/apple-sues-samsung-over-for-copying-the-iphone-and-ipad/">lawsuit</a>, he said that the redesign is part of the company's five-year plan rather than a sudden change. He went on to say that the flagship went through hundreds of iterations before the team alighted upon the model that will shortly make its way into <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/05/16/galaxy-s-iii-early-release-date/">sweaty palms</a> all over the <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/05/21/amazon-puts-samsung-galaxy-s-iii-up-for-us-pre-orders/">world</a>.</p><p style="padding:5px;background:#ddd;border:1px solid #ccc;clear:both;"><a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/05/22/samsung-lawyers-galaxy-s-iii-design/">Samsung: 'Lawyers didn't design the Galaxy S III'</a> originally appeared on <a href="http://www.engadget.com">Engadget</a> on Tue, 22 May 2012 07:59:00 EST.  Please see our <a href="http://www.weblogsinc.com/feed-terms/">terms for use of feeds</a>.</p><h6 style="clear: both; padding: 8px 0 0 0; height: 2px; font-size: 1px; border: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0;"></h6><a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/05/22/samsung-lawyers-galaxy-s-iii-design/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent link to this entry">Permalink</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.engadget.com/forward/20242415/" title="Send this entry to a friend via email">Email this</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/05/22/samsung-lawyers-galaxy-s-iii-design/#comments" title="View reader comments on this entry">Comments</a>]]></description><category>Android</category><category>Apple</category><category>Chang Dong-hoon</category><category>ChangDong-hoon</category><category>Copyright</category><category>Galaxy S III</category><category>GalaxySIii</category><category>Google</category><category>Lawsuit</category><category>Lawyers</category><category>Litigation</category><category>mobilepostmini</category><category>Patent</category><category>Samsung</category><category>Samsung Galaxy S III</category><category>SamsungGalaxySIii</category><category>Trade Dress</category><category>TradeDress</category><dc:creator><![CDATA[Daniel Cooper]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 22 May 2012 07:59:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Samsung chief: we're open to a cross-licensing deal with Apple, but 4G chip shortage might last until the fall]]></title><link>http://www.engadget.com/2012/05/20/samsung-chief-says-open-to-cross-licensing-deal-with-apple/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.engadget.com/2012/05/20/samsung-chief-says-open-to-cross-licensing-deal-with-apple/</guid><comments>http://www.engadget.com/2012/05/20/samsung-chief-says-open-to-cross-licensing-deal-with-apple/#comments</comments><description><![CDATA[<p style="text-align: center;"> <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/05/20/samsung-chief-says-open-to-cross-licensing-deal-with-apple/"><img alt="Image" src="http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2012/05/jk-shin-samsung-galaxy-s-iii.jpg" style="margin: 4px; width: 600px; height: 404px;" /></a></p><p> The at times <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/05/14/apple-gets-another-bite-wins-appeal-to-pursue-preliminary-injun/">very heated legal battle</a> between Apple and Samsung might be softening just a bit ahead of <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/04/28/apple-samsung-patent-mediation-court-date/">truce talks</a> on May 21st. Samsung's mobile head <a href="http://www.engadget.com/tag/JKShin/">JK Shin</a> just left Seoul for the mediated discussions saying there were still "several negotiation options" on tap, including the possibility of cross-licensing patents. He warned that there was still a "big gap" between the two sides, and we'd tend to agree -- <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/16/apple-v-samsung-cupertinos-latest-complaint-alleges-17-device/">neither Apple</a> <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/03/07/samsung-v-apple-korea/">nor Samsung</a> is exactly backing off just yet. However, it's a definite shift in language from March, when Shin was vowing "no compromise," and it parallels Apple CEO Tim Cook's own <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/04/24/tim-cook-hates-litigation-not-quite-ready-to-call-a-patent-truc/">disdain for lawsuits</a>. We just wouldn't bet money on the two singing "Kumbaya" this week.</p><p> In same breath, Shin added that an ongoing 4G chipset shortage wasn't letting up: he didn't see things getting better until the start of the fourth quarter, or October for us common folk. That's a problem for Samsung's phones and tablets most of all, of course, and in a dire case could see LTE-packing <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/05/03/samsung-galaxy-s-iii-hspa-arriving-in-may-4g-version-hitting-n/">American Galaxy S III variants</a> rely on other vendors' chips to stay on the 4G bandwagon. There's also a chance of a ripple effect on other companies that want Samsung's parts, but short of getting a peek at Samsung's inner workings, we won't know the full impact for awhile yet.</p><p style="padding:5px;background:#ddd;border:1px solid #ccc;clear:both;"><a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/05/20/samsung-chief-says-open-to-cross-licensing-deal-with-apple/">Samsung chief: we're open to a cross-licensing deal with Apple, but 4G chip shortage might last until the fall</a> originally appeared on <a href="http://www.engadget.com">Engadget</a> on Sun, 20 May 2012 13:02:00 EST.  Please see our <a href="http://www.weblogsinc.com/feed-terms/">terms for use of feeds</a>.</p><h6 style="clear: both; padding: 8px 0 0 0; height: 2px; font-size: 1px; border: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0;"></h6><a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/05/20/samsung-chief-says-open-to-cross-licensing-deal-with-apple/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent link to this entry">Permalink</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.engadget.com/forward/20241343/" title="Send this entry to a friend via email">Email this</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/05/20/samsung-chief-says-open-to-cross-licensing-deal-with-apple/#comments" title="View reader comments on this entry">Comments</a>]]></description><category>4g</category><category>4G LTE</category><category>4G LTE Chipset</category><category>4gLte</category><category>4gLteChipset</category><category>android</category><category>Apple</category><category>apple ipad</category><category>Apple iPhone</category><category>AppleIpad</category><category>AppleIphone</category><category>cellphone</category><category>cellphones</category><category>cross licensing</category><category>cross-licensing</category><category>CrossLicensing</category><category>galaxy s 3</category><category>galaxy s iii</category><category>galaxy tab</category><category>GalaxyS3</category><category>GalaxySIii</category><category>GalaxyTab</category><category>ipad</category><category>iphone</category><category>jk shin</category><category>JkShin</category><category>lawsuit</category><category>lawsuits</category><category>LTE</category><category>mediation</category><category>mobile</category><category>mobilepostcross</category><category>patent</category><category>patent lawsuit</category><category>patent suit</category><category>PatentLawsuit</category><category>patents</category><category>PatentSuit</category><category>samsung</category><category>samsung galaxy s 3</category><category>samsung galaxy s iii</category><category>Samsung Galaxy Tab</category><category>SamsungGalaxyS3</category><category>SamsungGalaxySIii</category><category>SamsungGalaxyTab</category><category>settlement</category><category>settlements</category><category>smartphone</category><category>smartphones</category><category>tim cook</category><category>TimCook</category><dc:creator><![CDATA[Jon Fingas]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Sun, 20 May 2012 13:02:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Apple files (again) for a preliminary ban against the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1]]></title><link>http://www.engadget.com/2012/05/19/apple-files-again-for-a-preliminary-ban-against-samsung/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.engadget.com/2012/05/19/apple-files-again-for-a-preliminary-ban-against-samsung/</guid><comments>http://www.engadget.com/2012/05/19/apple-files-again-for-a-preliminary-ban-against-samsung/#comments</comments><description><![CDATA[<p style="text-align: center;"> <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/05/19/apple-files-again-for-a-preliminary-ban-against-samsung/"><img alt="Apple's filed for a preliminary injunction (again)" src="http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2012/05/tab.jpg" style="width: 600px; height: 399px;" /></a></p><p> If you found yourself longing for the <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2011/11/20/samsungs-modified-galaxy-tab-10-1n-for-germany-gets-examined/">minor tweaks</a> Samsung made to the <a href="http://www.engadget.com/tag/GalaxyTab101/">Galaxy Tab 10.1</a> <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/09/apple-samsung-galaxy-tab-ipad/">in Germany</a> earlier this year, you may be in luck: Apple's filed for a preliminary injunction against the slate stateside. It isn't the first one, either, Cupertino filed <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/10/apple-seeks-injunction-against-samsung-in-california-with-newly/">something similar</a> back in February, though it didn't quite pass legal muster. After gaining some headway <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/05/14/apple-gets-another-bite-wins-appeal-to-pursue-preliminary-injun/">earlier this week</a>, Cook's crew is in for round two, according to <span style="font-style: italic;">FOSS </span><em>Patents</em>, asking for Judge Koh to rule in their favor without a new hearing. Concerned consumers, however, can sidestep the whole mess by simply opting for an injunction-exempt <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/05/15/samsung-galaxy-tab-2-10-1-review/">Galaxy Tab 2</a>. Details and speculation can be found at the source link below, just in case you aren't already sick to death of the whole <a href="http://www.engadget.com/tag/apple%2C+samsung%2C+lawsuit">Samsung / Apple</a> spat.</p><p style="padding:5px;background:#ddd;border:1px solid #ccc;clear:both;"><a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/05/19/apple-files-again-for-a-preliminary-ban-against-samsung/">Apple files (again) for a preliminary ban against the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1</a> originally appeared on <a href="http://www.engadget.com">Engadget</a> on Sat, 19 May 2012 02:29:00 EST.  Please see our <a href="http://www.weblogsinc.com/feed-terms/">terms for use of feeds</a>.</p><h6 style="clear: both; padding: 8px 0 0 0; height: 2px; font-size: 1px; border: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0;"></h6><a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/05/19/apple-files-again-for-a-preliminary-ban-against-samsung/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent link to this entry">Permalink</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.engadget.com/forward/20241078/" title="Send this entry to a friend via email">Email this</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/05/19/apple-files-again-for-a-preliminary-ban-against-samsung/#comments" title="View reader comments on this entry">Comments</a>]]></description><category>appeal</category><category>appeals</category><category>appeals court</category><category>AppealsCourt</category><category>apple</category><category>cafc</category><category>federal court</category><category>FederalCourt</category><category>Galaxy Tab 10.1</category><category>GalaxyTab10.1</category><category>injunction</category><category>ipad</category><category>Judge Lucy Koh</category><category>JudgeLucyKoh</category><category>lawsuit</category><category>legal</category><category>litigation</category><category>patent</category><category>patent infringement</category><category>PatentInfringement</category><category>patents</category><category>pr</category><dc:creator><![CDATA[Sean Buckley]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Sat, 19 May 2012 02:29:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[ITC bans Motorola mobile devices for infringing Microsoft patent (updated: MMI responds)]]></title><link>http://www.engadget.com/2012/05/18/itc-bans-motorola-mobile-devices-for-infringing-microsoft-patent/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.engadget.com/2012/05/18/itc-bans-motorola-mobile-devices-for-infringing-microsoft-patent/</guid><comments>http://www.engadget.com/2012/05/18/itc-bans-motorola-mobile-devices-for-infringing-microsoft-patent/#comments</comments><description><![CDATA[<p style="text-align: center;"> <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/05/18/itc-bans-motorola-mobile-devices-for-infringing-microsoft-patent/"><img alt="Image" src="http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2012/05/2011-12-20-motopic.jpg" style="margin: 4px; width: 600px; height: 381px;" /></a></p><p> At the end of last year, an Administrative Law Judge issued an <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2011/12/20/itc-judge-issues-initial-ruling-that-motorola-infringes-microsof/">initial ruling</a> that Motorola's mobile devices infringe a bit of Microsoft's IP. Now, the Commission has affirmed that decision and issued an exclusion order to ban Moto's offending devices from importation into the US. In case you weren't aware, the four patent claims at issue generally cover technology for scheduling meetings over email using a mobile device. So, unless Motorola removes the feature, pays for a license or whips up a workaround Microsoft's patent in short order, its inbound RAZRs, Droid 4s, Bionics and other offending handsets will be stuck in customs alongside <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/05/15/htc-one-x-and-evo-4g-lte-delayed-at-customs-due-to-itc-exclusio/">HTC's One X and EVO 4G LTE</a> -- that is, unless Obama steps in to save the day during the prescribed presidential review period. Microsoft, naturally, is quite pleased with this development and has issued a statement:</p><blockquote> <p>  <span>Microsoft sued Motorola in the ITC only after Motorola chose to refuse Microsoft's efforts to renew a patent license for well over a year. We're pleased the full Commission agreed that Motorola has infringed Microsoft's intellectual property, and we hope that now Motorola will be willing to join the vast majority of Android device makers selling phones in the US by taking a license to our patents.</span></p> <p>  <i>-- </i><span>David Howard, corporate vice president and deputy general counsel Microsoft</span></p></blockquote><p> We've reached out to Motorola for comment on the matter as well, so stay tuned to see what it has to say.</p><p> <strong>Update:</strong> Motorola has issued an understandably somber statement on the ruling:</p><blockquote> <p>  <span>Microsoft started its ITC investigation asserting 9 patents</span><span> against Motorola Mobility</span><span>. </span><span> </span><span>Although we are disappointed by the Commission's ruling that </span><span>certain </span><span>Motorola Mobility</span><span> products</span><span> violated one patent, we look forward to reading the full opinion to understand its reasoning.  Motorola Mobility will not experience any impact in the near term, as the Commission's ruling is subject to a $0.33/per unit bond during the 60 day Presidential review period.  We will explore all options including appeal.</span></p></blockquote><p style="padding:5px;background:#ddd;border:1px solid #ccc;clear:both;"><a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/05/18/itc-bans-motorola-mobile-devices-for-infringing-microsoft-patent/">ITC bans Motorola mobile devices for infringing Microsoft patent (updated: MMI responds)</a> originally appeared on <a href="http://www.engadget.com">Engadget</a> on Fri, 18 May 2012 17:21:00 EST.  Please see our <a href="http://www.weblogsinc.com/feed-terms/">terms for use of feeds</a>.</p><h6 style="clear: both; padding: 8px 0 0 0; height: 2px; font-size: 1px; border: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0;"></h6><a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/05/18/itc-bans-motorola-mobile-devices-for-infringing-microsoft-patent/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent link to this entry">Permalink</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.engadget.com/forward/20240979/" title="Send this entry to a friend via email">Email this</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/05/18/itc-bans-motorola-mobile-devices-for-infringing-microsoft-patent/#comments" title="View reader comments on this entry">Comments</a>]]></description><category>ban</category><category>cellphones</category><category>exclusion order</category><category>ExclusionOrder</category><category>import ban</category><category>ImportBan</category><category>international trade commission</category><category>InternationalTradeCommission</category><category>itc</category><category>lawsuit</category><category>legal</category><category>microsoft</category><category>mobilepostcross</category><category>motorola</category><category>patent</category><category>patent infringement</category><category>PatentInfringement</category><category>patents</category><dc:creator><![CDATA[Michael Gorman]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 18 May 2012 17:21:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Apple, HTC ordered by judge to sit down, try and make nice on August 28th]]></title><link>http://www.engadget.com/2012/05/17/apple-and-htc-ordered-by-judge-to-sit-down-in-mediation/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.engadget.com/2012/05/17/apple-and-htc-ordered-by-judge-to-sit-down-in-mediation/</guid><comments>http://www.engadget.com/2012/05/17/apple-and-htc-ordered-by-judge-to-sit-down-in-mediation/#comments</comments><description><![CDATA[<p> <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/05/17/apple-and-htc-ordered-by-judge-to-sit-down-in-mediation/"><img alt="HTC's Cher Wang at Apple Store" src="http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2011/05/11x05231eddrgh.jpg" style="width: 600px; height: 400px;" /></a></p><p> There's a trend starting to emerge of judges wanting Apple to<a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/05/03/lucy-koh-kicks-ass/"> talk settlements with others</a> rather than duke it out in the courtroom. Just two weeks after Apple and Samsung were steered towards talking about a potential deal, a Delaware court has ordered Apple and HTC to meet on August 28th in the hopes that they could shake hands and put an end to an <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2011/08/16/htc-drags-on-the-patent-war-files-yet-another-complaint-against/">increasingly hectic legal battle</a> under the eyes of a mediating judge. Whether or not that happens is very much up in the air. Apple CEO Tim Cook has said he's <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/04/24/tim-cook-hates-litigation-not-quite-ready-to-call-a-patent-truc/">not a fan of lawsuits</a>, but he hasn't showed indications that he would take legal action off the table just yet. Likewise, HTC is no doubt eager to eliminate <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/05/15/htc-one-x-and-evo-4g-lte-delayed-at-customs-due-to-itc-exclusio/">phone shipping delays</a> stemming from Apple's court wins, but the lack of immediate pressure and the hopes of winning countersuits might lead it to hold off. Still, if the court's ideal vision of the world comes to pass, you could see <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2011/05/23/caption-contest-htc-chairwoman-cher-wang-drops-by-apples-palo/">HTC's Cher Wang shopping in an Apple Store</a> without staff giving her the evil eye.</p><p> [Image credit: <a href="http://www.mobile01.com/topicdetail.php?f=563&amp;t=2168501">mobile01</a>]</p><p style="padding:5px;background:#ddd;border:1px solid #ccc;clear:both;"><a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/05/17/apple-and-htc-ordered-by-judge-to-sit-down-in-mediation/">Apple, HTC ordered by judge to sit down, try and make nice on August 28th</a> originally appeared on <a href="http://www.engadget.com">Engadget</a> on Thu, 17 May 2012 16:49:00 EST.  Please see our <a href="http://www.weblogsinc.com/feed-terms/">terms for use of feeds</a>.</p><h6 style="clear: both; padding: 8px 0 0 0; height: 2px; font-size: 1px; border: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0;"></h6><a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/05/17/apple-and-htc-ordered-by-judge-to-sit-down-in-mediation/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent link to this entry">Permalink</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.engadget.com/forward/20240334/" title="Send this entry to a friend via email">Email this</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/05/17/apple-and-htc-ordered-by-judge-to-sit-down-in-mediation/#comments" title="View reader comments on this entry">Comments</a>]]></description><category>agreement</category><category>android</category><category>Apple</category><category>Apple iPhone</category><category>AppleIphone</category><category>cellphone</category><category>cellphones</category><category>court</category><category>courtroom</category><category>deal</category><category>deals</category><category>htc</category><category>iphone</category><category>judge</category><category>lawsuit</category><category>lawsuits</category><category>mediation</category><category>mobilepostcross</category><category>negotiation</category><category>negotiations</category><category>patent</category><category>Patent Dispute</category><category>patent infringement</category><category>PatentDispute</category><category>PatentInfringement</category><category>patents</category><category>settlement</category><category>settlements</category><category>smartphone</category><category>smartphones</category><category>talks</category><category>truce</category><dc:creator><![CDATA[Jon Fingas]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 17 May 2012 16:49:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Apple gets another bite, wins appeal to pursue preliminary injunction against Samsung]]></title><link>http://www.engadget.com/2012/05/14/apple-gets-another-bite-wins-appeal-to-pursue-preliminary-injun/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.engadget.com/2012/05/14/apple-gets-another-bite-wins-appeal-to-pursue-preliminary-injun/</guid><comments>http://www.engadget.com/2012/05/14/apple-gets-another-bite-wins-appeal-to-pursue-preliminary-injun/#comments</comments><description><![CDATA[<p style="text-align: center;"> <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/05/14/apple-gets-another-bite-wins-appeal-to-pursue-preliminary-injun/"><img alt="Apple gets another bite, wins appeal to pursue preliminary injunction against Samsung" src="http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2012/05/tab.jpg" style="margin: 4px; width: 600px; height: 399px;" /></a></p><p> We'll forgive you if you've forgotten, given the myriad <a href="http://www.engadget.com/tag/apple%2C+samsung%2C+lawsuit">Apple/Samsung</a> legal shenanigans, but back in February, Apple attempted to obtain a <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/10/apple-seeks-injunction-against-samsung-in-california-with-newly/">preliminary injunction</a> against Samsung to prevent the Galaxy Tab 10.1 and a few phones from being sold in the US. Samsung emerged victorious, as the district court denied Cupertino's request because it questioned the validity of a couple of Apple's patents and didn't see how Apple would be irreparably harmed if it failed to get Sammy's products banned. Naturally, Tim Cook's crew appealed that decision, and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) has decided to give Apple another crack at obtaining an injunction. The CAFC upheld the lower court's ruling as to three of the four patents, but found fault with the District Court's holding that Apple's tablet design patent had substantial questions of validity.</p><p> Essentially, the lower court held that Apple's patent was likely no good because it was an obvious design in light of two tablets that were created long before Apple patented the iPad's look. However, the CAFC found that one of the previous slate's asymmetrical bezel and lack of an unbroken, all-glass surface (among other differences) were sufficient to render Apple's patent non-obvious. Basically, the appellate court found that the District court "construed the claimed design too broadly," and remanded the issue so that the district court could complete its preliminary injunction analysis. So, Apple's cleared a big hurdle towards getting the Galaxy Tab 10.1 off the US market, but the company's still got to persuade <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/05/03/lucy-koh-kicks-ass/">Judge Koh</a> that it'll be irreparably harmed without the injunction. This decision assures even longer legal proceedings, but given how well both of these <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/05/04/apple-samsung-99-percent-profits/">tech titans</a> are doing these days, we're pretty sure they can afford the attorneys' fees.</p><p style="padding:5px;background:#ddd;border:1px solid #ccc;clear:both;"><a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/05/14/apple-gets-another-bite-wins-appeal-to-pursue-preliminary-injun/">Apple gets another bite, wins appeal to pursue preliminary injunction against Samsung</a> originally appeared on <a href="http://www.engadget.com">Engadget</a> on Mon, 14 May 2012 13:58:00 EST.  Please see our <a href="http://www.weblogsinc.com/feed-terms/">terms for use of feeds</a>.</p><h6 style="clear: both; padding: 8px 0 0 0; height: 2px; font-size: 1px; border: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0;"></h6><a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/05/14/apple-gets-another-bite-wins-appeal-to-pursue-preliminary-injun/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent link to this entry">Permalink</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.engadget.com/forward/20237658/" title="Send this entry to a friend via email">Email this</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/05/14/apple-gets-another-bite-wins-appeal-to-pursue-preliminary-injun/#comments" title="View reader comments on this entry">Comments</a>]]></description><category>appeal</category><category>appeals</category><category>appeals court</category><category>AppealsCourt</category><category>apple</category><category>cafc</category><category>federal court</category><category>FederalCourt</category><category>galaxy tab 10.1</category><category>GalaxyTab10.1</category><category>injunction</category><category>ipad</category><category>Judge Lucy Koh</category><category>JudgeLucyKoh</category><category>lawsuit</category><category>legal</category><category>litigation</category><category>patent</category><category>patent infringement</category><category>PatentInfringement</category><category>patents</category><category>preliminary injunction</category><category>PreliminaryInjunction</category><category>samsung</category><dc:creator><![CDATA[Michael Gorman]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 14 May 2012 13:58:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Apple and Samsung finally agree... to drop a plethora of claims from their patent spat]]></title><link>http://www.engadget.com/2012/05/08/apple-and-samsung-finally-agree-to-drop-a-plethora-of-claims-fr/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.engadget.com/2012/05/08/apple-and-samsung-finally-agree-to-drop-a-plethora-of-claims-fr/</guid><comments>http://www.engadget.com/2012/05/08/apple-and-samsung-finally-agree-to-drop-a-plethora-of-claims-fr/#comments</comments><description><![CDATA[<p style="text-align: center;"> <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/05/08/apple-samsung-reduce-patent-claims/"><img alt="Apple and Samsung finally agree... to drop a plethora of claims from their patent spat" src="http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2012/05/2782479341398995911813501433279534807839n.jpg" style="margin: 4px; width: 600px; height: 398px;" /></a></p><p> Last week, Judge Lucy Koh informed Apple and Samsung that they would have to reduce the <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/16/apple-v-samsung-cupertinos-latest-complaint-alleges-17-device/">number of patent claims</a> at issue in the parties' Northern District of California litigation. And now, each has complied, with Samsung dropping its total number of asserted patent claims from 75 to 15, while dismissing two patents from the case altogether. For its part, Apple has reduced its case to one claim from each of its asserted utility patents, its four iPhone and one iPad design patents, and its trade dress claims for those two devices. Keep in mind, however, that they did so without prejudice, which means that either party can reassert these dismissed claims in a later lawsuit. That said, the parties have at least attempted to placate Judge Koh in order to keep their July 30th trial date, which is when the real legal fireworks begin. Feel free to check the filings below for the full scope of this most recent patent pruning.</p><p style="padding:5px;background:#ddd;border:1px solid #ccc;clear:both;"><a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/05/08/apple-and-samsung-finally-agree-to-drop-a-plethora-of-claims-fr/">Apple and Samsung finally agree... to drop a plethora of claims from their patent spat</a> originally appeared on <a href="http://www.engadget.com">Engadget</a> on Tue, 08 May 2012 13:47:00 EST.  Please see our <a href="http://www.weblogsinc.com/feed-terms/">terms for use of feeds</a>.</p><h6 style="clear: both; padding: 8px 0 0 0; height: 2px; font-size: 1px; border: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0;"></h6><a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/05/08/apple-and-samsung-finally-agree-to-drop-a-plethora-of-claims-fr/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent link to this entry">Permalink</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.engadget.com/forward/20233937/" title="Send this entry to a friend via email">Email this</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/05/08/apple-and-samsung-finally-agree-to-drop-a-plethora-of-claims-fr/#comments" title="View reader comments on this entry">Comments</a>]]></description><category>apple</category><category>claims</category><category>infringement</category><category>judge lucy koh</category><category>JudgeLucyKoh</category><category>lawsuit</category><category>legal</category><category>litigation</category><category>patent</category><category>patent claims</category><category>patent infringement</category><category>PatentClaims</category><category>PatentInfringement</category><category>patents</category><category>samsung</category><dc:creator><![CDATA[Michael Gorman]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 08 May 2012 13:47:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Xamarin's XobotOS opens prospect of Android port to C#, can of worms]]></title><link>http://www.engadget.com/2012/05/04/Xamarin-XobotOS-ports-Android-to-C-Sharp/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.engadget.com/2012/05/04/Xamarin-XobotOS-ports-Android-to-C-Sharp/</guid><comments>http://www.engadget.com/2012/05/04/Xamarin-XobotOS-ports-Android-to-C-Sharp/#comments</comments><description><![CDATA[<p style="text-align: center;"> <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/05/04/Xamarin-XobotOS-ports-Android-to-C-Sharp/"><img alt="Xamarin-XobotOS-ports-Android-to-C-Sharp" height="400" src="http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2012/05/android-c-05-04-12-01.jpg" style="margin:4px" width="600" /></a></p><p> Would it be ironic if Android developers did an end-run around <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/04/25/pegatron-licenses-microsofts-patent-porfolio-for-android-and-ch/">Microsoft patents</a> by using Microsoft's own C#? Or if Google kiboshed its Oracle <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/04/02/oracle-and-google-get-a-trial-date-april-16th-is-the-start-of-a/">brouhaha</a> with the aid of none other than Redmond? We're asking because Xamarin, the wacky open source implementer of .NET, has ported Android to Microsoft's C# with its XobotOS project. Although just an experiment and unlikely to solve Google's <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/04/02/oracle-and-google-get-a-trial-date-april-16th-is-the-start-of-a/">issues</a>, the team showed that running the robot on C# instead of Java gave fewer coding limitations, better battery life and direct graphics access. Additionally, Xamarin reports "massive" speed gains on its HTC Flyer and Acer Iconia when running the side-project port -- no surprise given C#'s machine heritage. Sure, it's pure speculation that Mountain View and its developers would ever change their Java MO, but a little patent relief and faster Android devices in one kill shot? That's a sweet idea.</p><p style="padding:5px;background:#ddd;border:1px solid #ccc;clear:both;"><a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/05/04/Xamarin-XobotOS-ports-Android-to-C-Sharp/">Xamarin's XobotOS opens prospect of Android port to C#, can of worms</a> originally appeared on <a href="http://www.engadget.com">Engadget</a> on Fri, 04 May 2012 16:16:00 EST.  Please see our <a href="http://www.weblogsinc.com/feed-terms/">terms for use of feeds</a>.</p><h6 style="clear: both; padding: 8px 0 0 0; height: 2px; font-size: 1px; border: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0;"></h6><a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/05/04/Xamarin-XobotOS-ports-Android-to-C-Sharp/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent link to this entry">Permalink</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.engadget.com/forward/20230869/" title="Send this entry to a friend via email">Email this</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/05/04/Xamarin-XobotOS-ports-Android-to-C-Sharp/#comments" title="View reader comments on this entry">Comments</a>]]></description><category>android</category><category>business</category><category>c</category><category>C Sharp</category><category>CSharp</category><category>dalvik</category><category>dev</category><category>developer</category><category>developers</category><category>google</category><category>hack</category><category>hacks</category><category>java</category><category>java dalvik</category><category>JavaDalvik</category><category>lawsuit</category><category>microsoft</category><category>oracle</category><category>OS</category><category>patent</category><category>patent deal</category><category>PatentDeal</category><category>port</category><category>ports</category><category>software</category><category>xamarin</category><category>xobot</category><category>xobotOS</category><dc:creator><![CDATA[Steve Dent]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 04 May 2012 16:16:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Apple and Samsung set to meet May 21st, hug it out over 48 hours]]></title><link>http://www.engadget.com/2012/04/28/apple-samsung-patent-mediation-court-date/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.engadget.com/2012/04/28/apple-samsung-patent-mediation-court-date/</guid><comments>http://www.engadget.com/2012/04/28/apple-samsung-patent-mediation-court-date/#comments</comments><description><![CDATA[<p style="text-align: center;"> <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/04/28/apple-samsung-patent-mediation-court-date/"><img alt="Apple and Samsung set to meet May 21st, hug it out over 48 hours" src="http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2012/04/apple-samsung-pic-1335654076.jpg" style="margin: 4px; width: 600px; height: 380px; border-width: 0px; border-style: solid;" /></a></p><p> These two brawlers were <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/04/17/apple-and-samsung-ceos-set-to-sit-down-attempt-to-settle-disput/">given until July </a>to come together and mediate over their numerous globe-spanning <a href="http://www.engadget.com/tag/apple,samsung">patent lawsuits</a>, but it appears neither side needs to wait that long. According to <em>Foss Patents</em>, May 21st and 22nd have been circled on the calendar of a certain San Francisco courthouse, where Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero will attempt to arbitrate in a calm, soothing voice for two days straight. Presenting himself as a confidant who sits outside of the main litigation being conducted in San Jose, Spero has already asked both parties to open up and provide "candid" statements about the strengths and weaknesses of their own cases, as a first step towards identifying areas of compromise. Fortunately, he still has a few weeks in which to devise further cunning plans.</p><p><a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/04/28/apple-samsung-patent-mediation-court-date/" rel="bookmark">Continue reading <em>Apple and Samsung set to meet May 21st, hug it out over 48 hours</em></a></p><p style="padding:5px;background:#ddd;border:1px solid #ccc;clear:both;"><a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/04/28/apple-samsung-patent-mediation-court-date/">Apple and Samsung set to meet May 21st, hug it out over 48 hours</a> originally appeared on <a href="http://www.engadget.com">Engadget</a> on Sat, 28 Apr 2012 19:39:00 EST.  Please see our <a href="http://www.weblogsinc.com/feed-terms/">terms for use of feeds</a>.</p><h6 style="clear: both; padding: 8px 0 0 0; height: 2px; font-size: 1px; border: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0;"></h6><a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/04/28/apple-samsung-patent-mediation-court-date/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent link to this entry">Permalink</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.engadget.com/forward/20226624/" title="Send this entry to a friend via email">Email this</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/04/28/apple-samsung-patent-mediation-court-date/#comments" title="View reader comments on this entry">Comments</a>]]></description><category>apple</category><category>compromise</category><category>court</category><category>courthouse</category><category>cunning plan</category><category>CunningPlan</category><category>Joseph C. Spero</category><category>JosephC.Spero</category><category>lawsuit</category><category>lawsuits</category><category>litigation</category><category>mediation</category><category>minipost</category><category>mobilepostcross</category><category>negotiation</category><category>patent</category><category>patent battle</category><category>patent infringement</category><category>patent litigation</category><category>PatentBattle</category><category>PatentInfringement</category><category>PatentLitigation</category><category>patents</category><category>samsung</category><category>san francisco</category><category>SanFrancisco</category><dc:creator><![CDATA[Sharif Sakr]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Sat, 28 Apr 2012 19:39:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Tim Cook hates litigation, not quite ready to call a patent truce]]></title><link>http://www.engadget.com/2012/04/24/tim-cook-hates-litigation-not-quite-ready-to-call-a-patent-truc/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.engadget.com/2012/04/24/tim-cook-hates-litigation-not-quite-ready-to-call-a-patent-truc/</guid><comments>http://www.engadget.com/2012/04/24/tim-cook-hates-litigation-not-quite-ready-to-call-a-patent-truc/#comments</comments><description><![CDATA[<p style="text-align: center; "> <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/04/24/tim-cook-hates-litigation-not-quite-ready-to-call-a-patent-truc/"><img alt="Tim Cook hates litigation, not quite ready to call a patent truce" src="http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2011/10/tim-cook-iphone-4s-live-video.jpg" style="width: 600px; height: 339px; border: 0px solid; margin: 4px; " /></a></p><p> Tired of the <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/03/16/apple-samsung-slide-to-unlock-patent-case-germany/">ongoing</a> <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/04/24/itc-judge-finds-apple-in-violation-of-motorola-wifi-patent/">patent</a> <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/04/13/german-court-upholds-ban-on-icloud-and-mobileme-push-emails/">wars</a>? Well, <a href="http://www.engadget.com/tag/timcook">Tim Cook</a> gave us some reason to hope. In response to a question about the potential for settlements in the current pile of lawsuits on the company's plate, the CEO seemed open to the idea. In fact, he used the "h" word to describe is feelings towards the process. "I've always hated litigation. I continue to hate it," he said, before striking a slightly more combative tone to clarify, "I just want people to invent their own stuff." So there you go, stop stealing Apple's inventions and its lawyers won't sue. Seems simple enough. The urge to avoid further legal tussles seems genuine though, saying that, if an acceptable agreement could be struck he'd "highly prefer to settle rather than battle."</p><p style="padding:5px;background:#ddd;border:1px solid #ccc;clear:both;"><a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/04/24/tim-cook-hates-litigation-not-quite-ready-to-call-a-patent-truc/">Tim Cook hates litigation, not quite ready to call a patent truce</a> originally appeared on <a href="http://www.engadget.com">Engadget</a> on Tue, 24 Apr 2012 18:01:00 EST.  Please see our <a href="http://www.weblogsinc.com/feed-terms/">terms for use of feeds</a>.</p><h6 style="clear: both; padding: 8px 0 0 0; height: 2px; font-size: 1px; border: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0;"></h6><a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/04/24/tim-cook-hates-litigation-not-quite-ready-to-call-a-patent-truc/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent link to this entry">Permalink</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.engadget.com/forward/20223355/" title="Send this entry to a friend via email">Email this</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/04/24/tim-cook-hates-litigation-not-quite-ready-to-call-a-patent-truc/#comments" title="View reader comments on this entry">Comments</a>]]></description><category>apple</category><category>earnings</category><category>earnings call</category><category>EarningsCall</category><category>lawsuit</category><category>legal</category><category>litigation</category><category>patent</category><category>Patent Dispute</category><category>PatentDispute</category><category>patents</category><category>settlement</category><category>tim cook</category><category>TimCook</category><dc:creator><![CDATA[Terrence O'Brien]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 24 Apr 2012 18:01:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[ITC issues preliminary ruling, finds Microsoft's Xbox 360 infringes on Motorola patents]]></title><link>http://www.engadget.com/2012/04/23/itc-issues-preliminary-ruling-in-microsoft-motorola-dispute/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.engadget.com/2012/04/23/itc-issues-preliminary-ruling-in-microsoft-motorola-dispute/</guid><comments>http://www.engadget.com/2012/04/23/itc-issues-preliminary-ruling-in-microsoft-motorola-dispute/#comments</comments><description><![CDATA[<p style="text-align: center;"> <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/04/23/itc-issues-preliminary-ruling-in-microsoft-motorola-dispute/"><img alt="ITC issues preliminary ruling, finds Microsoft's Xbox 360 infringes on Motorola patents" src="http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2012/04/moto-microsoft-1335221855.jpg" style="margin: 4px; width: 600px; height: 239px;" /></a></p><p> Potential bad news to start out the week for Microsofties: a judge from the US International Trade Commission has issued a preliminary ruling that finds Microsoft's <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/04/11/microsoft-wins-injunction-in-washington-against-motorola-can-ke/">Xbox 360</a> infringes on <strike>five</strike> four of Motorola's patents (and in Microsoft's favor on one). While the decision is by no means final -- which means that the Redmond outfit could ultimately prevail -- a final ruling would force Microsoft's hand to seek proper licenses for the technologies, most of which relate to H.264 video encoding, or have its gaming console banned from US shelves. For now, the lawyers will go back to the lab to refine their arguments and get ready to present them to a full panel of ITC judges later this year. Who wants to set odds on the outcome?</p><p style="padding:5px;background:#ddd;border:1px solid #ccc;clear:both;"><a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/04/23/itc-issues-preliminary-ruling-in-microsoft-motorola-dispute/">ITC issues preliminary ruling, finds Microsoft's Xbox 360 infringes on Motorola patents</a> originally appeared on <a href="http://www.engadget.com">Engadget</a> on Mon, 23 Apr 2012 18:58:00 EST.  Please see our <a href="http://www.weblogsinc.com/feed-terms/">terms for use of feeds</a>.</p><h6 style="clear: both; padding: 8px 0 0 0; height: 2px; font-size: 1px; border: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0;"></h6><a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/04/23/itc-issues-preliminary-ruling-in-microsoft-motorola-dispute/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent link to this entry">Permalink</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.engadget.com/forward/20222349/" title="Send this entry to a friend via email">Email this</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/04/23/itc-issues-preliminary-ruling-in-microsoft-motorola-dispute/#comments" title="View reader comments on this entry">Comments</a>]]></description><category>court</category><category>frand</category><category>h.264</category><category>infringement</category><category>intellectual property</category><category>IntellectualProperty</category><category>itc</category><category>lawsuit</category><category>legal</category><category>litigation</category><category>microsoft</category><category>motorola</category><category>patent</category><category>patents</category><dc:creator><![CDATA[Zachary Lutz]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 23 Apr 2012 18:58:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Facebook paying Microsoft $550 million for 650 patents, Ballmer clicks 'like']]></title><link>http://www.engadget.com/2012/04/23/facebook-buys-aol-patents/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.engadget.com/2012/04/23/facebook-buys-aol-patents/</guid><comments>http://www.engadget.com/2012/04/23/facebook-buys-aol-patents/#comments</comments><description><![CDATA[<p style="text-align: center;"> <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/04/23/facebook-buys-aol-patents/"><img alt="Image" height="136" src="http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2012/04/screen-shot-2012-04-23-at-17.10.20-1335197507.jpg" style="margin:4px" width="551" /></a></p><p> <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/04/22/microsoft-applies-for-low-powered-interactive-second-display-sys/">Microsoft</a> has agreed to sell on around 650 <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/03/19/microsoft-application-head-mounted-display/">patents</a> to <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/01/facebook-ipo-commences/">Facebook</a> in a deal worth $550 million. The Ha&uuml;s of Zuckerberg will stump up the cash in exchange for various social networking patents that were registered by AOL (<em>disclaimer: </em>Engadget's<em> parent company</em>) and sold to Redmond for $1 billion a fortnight ago. Microsoft will hold onto the remaining 275 in its portfolio and cross-license those that it's sold on, but not the 300 patents that AOL licensed but kept hold of. The social network will likely utilize the portfolio to better defend itself from <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/04/03/facebook-fights-back-countersues-yahoo/">litigation</a> like the lawsuit brought by <em>Yahoo</em> back in <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/03/12/yahoo-hits-facebook-with-patent-infringement-lawsuit/">March</a>. If you're interested in reading the phrase "protect Facebook's interests over the long term," then head past the break for the official word from the men who invented poking.</p><p><a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/04/23/facebook-buys-aol-patents/" rel="bookmark">Continue reading <em>Facebook paying Microsoft $550 million for 650 patents, Ballmer clicks 'like'</em></a></p><p style="padding:5px;background:#ddd;border:1px solid #ccc;clear:both;"><a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/04/23/facebook-buys-aol-patents/">Facebook paying Microsoft $550 million for 650 patents, Ballmer clicks 'like'</a> originally appeared on <a href="http://www.engadget.com">Engadget</a> on Mon, 23 Apr 2012 12:25:00 EST.  Please see our <a href="http://www.weblogsinc.com/feed-terms/">terms for use of feeds</a>.</p><h6 style="clear: both; padding: 8px 0 0 0; height: 2px; font-size: 1px; border: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0;"></h6><a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/04/23/facebook-buys-aol-patents/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent link to this entry">Permalink</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.engadget.com/forward/20221960/" title="Send this entry to a friend via email">Email this</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/04/23/facebook-buys-aol-patents/#comments" title="View reader comments on this entry">Comments</a>]]></description><category>AOL</category><category>Business</category><category>Countersuit</category><category>Cross Licensing Agreement</category><category>CrossLicensingAgreement</category><category>Deal</category><category>Defend</category><category>Facebook</category><category>Infringement</category><category>Lawsuit</category><category>Licensing</category><category>Licensing Agreement</category><category>LicensingAgreement</category><category>Microsoft</category><category>Patent</category><category>Patent Deal</category><category>PatentDeal</category><category>Purchase</category><category>Yahoo</category><dc:creator><![CDATA[Daniel Cooper]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 23 Apr 2012 12:25:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[German court upholds ban on iCloud and MobileMe push emails]]></title><link>http://www.engadget.com/2012/04/13/german-court-upholds-ban-on-icloud-and-mobileme-push-emails/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.engadget.com/2012/04/13/german-court-upholds-ban-on-icloud-and-mobileme-push-emails/</guid><comments>http://www.engadget.com/2012/04/13/german-court-upholds-ban-on-icloud-and-mobileme-push-emails/#comments</comments><description><![CDATA[<div style="text-align: center;"> <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/04/13/german-court-upholds-ban-on-icloud-and-mobileme-push-emails/"><img alt="German court upholds ban on iCloud and MobileMe push emails" src="http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2012/02/icloud.jpg" style="width: 600px; height: 243px;" /></a></div>It's been well over a month now since Apple <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/24/icloud-and-mobileme-email-down-in-germany/">suspended push email</a> from its iCloud and MobileMe services, and it doesn't look like it will be switching them back on any time soon. According to the <em>Wall Street Journal</em>, a German regional court has backed the ban, upholding Motorola Mobility's claims of <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/03/motorola-wins-permanent-injunction-against-apples-icloud-in-ger/">patent infringements</a>. The court agreed that Apple must also pay damages to Motorola, but has yet to agree on an amount. So, for now, users will need to stick to manually fetching updates, and hope a final agreement can be met further down the line.<p style="padding:5px;background:#ddd;border:1px solid #ccc;clear:both;"><a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/04/13/german-court-upholds-ban-on-icloud-and-mobileme-push-emails/">German court upholds ban on iCloud and MobileMe push emails</a> originally appeared on <a href="http://www.engadget.com">Engadget</a> on Fri, 13 Apr 2012 07:04:00 EST.  Please see our <a href="http://www.weblogsinc.com/feed-terms/">terms for use of feeds</a>.</p><h6 style="clear: both; padding: 8px 0 0 0; height: 2px; font-size: 1px; border: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0;"></h6><a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/04/13/german-court-upholds-ban-on-icloud-and-mobileme-push-emails/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent link to this entry">Permalink</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.engadget.com/forward/20214962/" title="Send this entry to a friend via email">Email this</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/04/13/german-court-upholds-ban-on-icloud-and-mobileme-push-emails/#comments" title="View reader comments on this entry">Comments</a>]]></description><category>apple</category><category>cloud</category><category>court</category><category>german</category><category>germany</category><category>icloud</category><category>injunction</category><category>judge</category><category>law</category><category>lawsuit</category><category>legal</category><category>mannheim regional court</category><category>MannheimRegionalCourt</category><category>motorola</category><category>patent</category><category>storage</category><dc:creator><![CDATA[James Trew]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 13 Apr 2012 07:04:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Microsoft wins injunction in Washington against Motorola, can keep selling stuff in Germany]]></title><link>http://www.engadget.com/2012/04/11/microsoft-wins-injunction-in-washington-against-motorola-can-ke/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.engadget.com/2012/04/11/microsoft-wins-injunction-in-washington-against-motorola-can-ke/</guid><comments>http://www.engadget.com/2012/04/11/microsoft-wins-injunction-in-washington-against-motorola-can-ke/#comments</comments><description><![CDATA[<div style="text-align: center;"> <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/04/11/microsoft-wins-injunction-in-washington-against-motorola-can-ke/"><img alt="Microsoft wins injunction in Washington against Motorola, can keep selling stuff in Germany" src="http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2012/04/moto-microsoft.jpg" style="margin: 4px; width: 600px; height: 239px;" /></a></div>Microsoft's been <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2010/11/10/motorola-slaps-microsoft-with-a-pair-of-patent-infringement-laws/">waging legal war</a> against Motorola on <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/03/02/itc-to-review-its-decision-on-microsoft-motorola-patent-case/">several fronts</a> for <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/22/microsoft-files-eu-antitrust-complaint-against-motorola-mobility/">some time</a> now, and today, team Redmond scored a victory in a federal district court in Washington that'll have repercussions in Germany. The judge granted Microsoft's motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction that prevents Motorola from enforcing any injunction it may obtain in the parties' parallel action in Mannheim, Germany. As a quick refresher, this litigation's all about a bundle of Moto-owned standards-essential WiFi and H.264 patents. Naturally, Motorola claims that Microsoft's infringing its IP, and has sought to stop sales of infringing products in Deutschland. Meanwhile, Microsoft contends Moto's in breach of contract because those patents haven't been made available for it to license on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms. This latest legal victory in the US merely means that Motorola won't enforce any injunction it obtains in Mannheim -- which leaves Microsoft free and clear to peddle its wares in Germany.<p style="padding:5px;background:#ddd;border:1px solid #ccc;clear:both;"><a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/04/11/microsoft-wins-injunction-in-washington-against-motorola-can-ke/">Microsoft wins injunction in Washington against Motorola, can keep selling stuff in Germany</a> originally appeared on <a href="http://www.engadget.com">Engadget</a> on Wed, 11 Apr 2012 20:49:00 EST.  Please see our <a href="http://www.weblogsinc.com/feed-terms/">terms for use of feeds</a>.</p><h6 style="clear: both; padding: 8px 0 0 0; height: 2px; font-size: 1px; border: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0;"></h6><a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/04/11/microsoft-wins-injunction-in-washington-against-motorola-can-ke/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent link to this entry">Permalink</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.engadget.com/forward/20213774/" title="Send this entry to a friend via email">Email this</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/04/11/microsoft-wins-injunction-in-washington-against-motorola-can-ke/#comments" title="View reader comments on this entry">Comments</a>]]></description><category>FRAND</category><category>H.264</category><category>intellectual property</category><category>IntellectualProperty</category><category>ip</category><category>lawsuit</category><category>legal</category><category>litigation</category><category>microsoft</category><category>motorola</category><category>patent</category><category>patent infringement</category><category>PatentInfringement</category><category>patents</category><dc:creator><![CDATA[Michael Gorman]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 11 Apr 2012 20:49:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Facebook fights back, countersues Yahoo]]></title><link>http://www.engadget.com/2012/04/03/facebook-fights-back-countersues-yahoo/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.engadget.com/2012/04/03/facebook-fights-back-countersues-yahoo/</guid><comments>http://www.engadget.com/2012/04/03/facebook-fights-back-countersues-yahoo/#comments</comments><description><![CDATA[<div style="text-align: center;"> <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/04/03/facebook-fights-back-countersues-yahoo/"><img alt="Facebook fights back, countersues Yahoo" src="http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2012/04/yahoo-bill-board-ice-cream.jpg" style="margin: 4px; width: 600px; height: 365px;" /></a></div>Surprise, surprise, Facebook has decided to sling a lawsuit Yahoo's way after the latter first filed a patent infringement action against Zuckerberg's crew <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/03/12/yahoo-hits-facebook-with-patent-infringement-lawsuit/">a few weeks ago</a>. According to Florian Mueller over at <em>FOSSPatents</em>, the social network's alleging some IP infringement of its own -- claiming that Yahoo has run afoul of ten of its patents. The patents in question cover myriad technologies, ranging for ad placement and information arrangements on web pages to privacy controls for managing what info is shown to individual users and instant messaging using email protocol. Just another <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/04/02/oracle-and-google-get-a-trial-date-april-16th-is-the-start-of-a/">ho-hum legal battle</a> between tech behemoths here in Silicon Valley, folks, with mere millions of dollars at stake. But, if you're yearning for more, you can read the full complaint at the <em>All Things D</em> source link below.<p style="padding:5px;background:#ddd;border:1px solid #ccc;clear:both;"><a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/04/03/facebook-fights-back-countersues-yahoo/">Facebook fights back, countersues Yahoo</a> originally appeared on <a href="http://www.engadget.com">Engadget</a> on Tue, 03 Apr 2012 14:43:00 EST.  Please see our <a href="http://www.weblogsinc.com/feed-terms/">terms for use of feeds</a>.</p><h6 style="clear: both; padding: 8px 0 0 0; height: 2px; font-size: 1px; border: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0;"></h6><a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/04/03/facebook-fights-back-countersues-yahoo/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent link to this entry">Permalink</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.engadget.com/forward/20207638/" title="Send this entry to a friend via email">Email this</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/04/03/facebook-fights-back-countersues-yahoo/#comments" title="View reader comments on this entry">Comments</a>]]></description><category>court</category><category>facebook</category><category>lawsuit</category><category>legal</category><category>patent</category><category>patent infringement</category><category>PatentInfringement</category><category>sue</category><category>suit</category><category>yahoo</category><dc:creator><![CDATA[Michael Gorman]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 03 Apr 2012 14:43:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[CSIRO snatches $220m windfall in WiFi patent dispute with AT&amp;T, T-Mobile and Verizon]]></title><link>http://www.engadget.com/2012/04/02/csiro-snatches-220m-windfall-in-wifi-patent-dispute/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.engadget.com/2012/04/02/csiro-snatches-220m-windfall-in-wifi-patent-dispute/</guid><comments>http://www.engadget.com/2012/04/02/csiro-snatches-220m-windfall-in-wifi-patent-dispute/#comments</comments><description><![CDATA[<div style="text-align: center;"> <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/04/02/csiro-snatches-220m-windfall-in-wifi-patent-dispute/"><img alt="Australia's CSRIO snatches $220m windfall in WiFi patent dispute with AT&amp;T, T-Mobile and Verizon" src="http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2012/04/mad-max-2-20100521-600.jpg" style="margin: 4px; width: 600px; height: 400px;" /></a></div>Australia's Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/csiros-patent-fight-targets-more-victims-atandt-verizon-wireles/">keeps bowling 'em over </a>-- in the courtroom, anyway -- with its hardy WiFi patent. The government-funded research group has chalked up another $220 million win after AT&amp;T, T-Mobile, Verizon, Acer, Lenovo and Sony each agreed to establish licenses with the litigious group. <a href="http://www.engadget.com/tag/csiro">CSIRO</a> now holds agreements with 23 companies and has pocketed more than $430 million from its courtroom activities. Australian Senator Chris Evans estimates that 90 percent of the industry is now paying licensing fees for the technology, but with the patent set to expire next year, we'd be mighty paranoid to be among that final ten percent. You'll find the full PR, chock-full of Aussie pride, after the break.<p><a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/04/02/csiro-snatches-220m-windfall-in-wifi-patent-dispute/" rel="bookmark">Continue reading <em>CSIRO snatches $220m windfall in WiFi patent dispute with AT&amp;T, T-Mobile and Verizon</em></a></p><p style="padding:5px;background:#ddd;border:1px solid #ccc;clear:both;"><a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/04/02/csiro-snatches-220m-windfall-in-wifi-patent-dispute/">CSIRO snatches $220m windfall in WiFi patent dispute with AT&amp;T, T-Mobile and Verizon</a> originally appeared on <a href="http://www.engadget.com">Engadget</a> on Mon, 02 Apr 2012 22:06:00 EST.  Please see our <a href="http://www.weblogsinc.com/feed-terms/">terms for use of feeds</a>.</p><h6 style="clear: both; padding: 8px 0 0 0; height: 2px; font-size: 1px; border: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0;"></h6><a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/04/02/csiro-snatches-220m-windfall-in-wifi-patent-dispute/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent link to this entry">Permalink</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.engadget.com/forward/20206873/" title="Send this entry to a friend via email">Email this</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/04/02/csiro-snatches-220m-windfall-in-wifi-patent-dispute/#comments" title="View reader comments on this entry">Comments</a>]]></description><category>att</category><category>australia</category><category>Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization</category><category>CommonwealthScientificAndIndustrialResearchOrganization</category><category>csiro</category><category>lawsuit</category><category>mobilepostcross</category><category>patent</category><category>patent fight</category><category>PatentFight</category><category>t-mobile</category><category>verizon</category><category>verizon wireless</category><category>VerizonWireless</category><dc:creator><![CDATA[Zachary Lutz]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 02 Apr 2012 22:06:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Oracle and Google get a trial date, April 16th is the start of Android armageddon]]></title><link>http://www.engadget.com/2012/04/02/oracle-and-google-get-a-trial-date-april-16th-is-the-start-of-a/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.engadget.com/2012/04/02/oracle-and-google-get-a-trial-date-april-16th-is-the-start-of-a/</guid><comments>http://www.engadget.com/2012/04/02/oracle-and-google-get-a-trial-date-april-16th-is-the-start-of-a/#comments</comments><description><![CDATA[<div style="text-align: center;"> <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/04/02/oracle-and-google-get-a-trial-date-april-16th-is-the-start-of-a/"><img alt="Oracle and Google get a trial date, April 16th is the start of Android armageddon" src="http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2012/04/oracle-v-google-1308942960.jpg" style="margin: 4px; width: 593px; height: 376px;" /></a></div>As regular readers of this site are well aware, Google and Oracle have had an ongoing <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/12/oracle-sues-google-over-java-patent-infringement-in-android/">legal spat</a> for nearly two years now. In the time since the lawsuit's filing, the legal claims have been <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/20/oracle-drops-patent-from-google-lawsuit-google-moves-to-strike/">narrowed</a>, damages claims have been <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2011/07/25/judge-tells-oracle-to-rethink-2-6-billion-claim-against-google/">adjusted</a>, <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/01/17/judge-attacks-oracles-stratospheric-damages-claim-against-goo/">reduced</a>, and <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/03/20/oracles-final-damage-claim-against-google-well-under-100-milli/">reduced </a>again. All that activity, plus continuous settlement talks caused the trial to be delayed several times. But now it appears that the two sides have officially reached an impasse, and so the tech giants will go to trial on April 16th to determine if Android illicitly pulled code from Java. Will Oracle get paid? Will Google and its green bots be gloating in the end? Pop some popcorn and settle in, folks, we'll start getting some answers in a couple weeks.<p style="padding:5px;background:#ddd;border:1px solid #ccc;clear:both;"><a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/04/02/oracle-and-google-get-a-trial-date-april-16th-is-the-start-of-a/">Oracle and Google get a trial date, April 16th is the start of Android armageddon</a> originally appeared on <a href="http://www.engadget.com">Engadget</a> on Mon, 02 Apr 2012 17:37:00 EST.  Please see our <a href="http://www.weblogsinc.com/feed-terms/">terms for use of feeds</a>.</p><h6 style="clear: both; padding: 8px 0 0 0; height: 2px; font-size: 1px; border: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0;"></h6><a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/04/02/oracle-and-google-get-a-trial-date-april-16th-is-the-start-of-a/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent link to this entry">Permalink</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.engadget.com/forward/20206922/" title="Send this entry to a friend via email">Email this</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/04/02/oracle-and-google-get-a-trial-date-april-16th-is-the-start-of-a/#comments" title="View reader comments on this entry">Comments</a>]]></description><category>android</category><category>copyright</category><category>copyright infringement</category><category>CopyrightInfringement</category><category>google</category><category>ip</category><category>java</category><category>lawsuit</category><category>legal</category><category>oracle</category><category>patent</category><category>patent infringement</category><category>PatentInfringement</category><dc:creator><![CDATA[Michael Gorman]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 02 Apr 2012 17:37:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Microsoft and TiVo agree to drop ongoing patent suits, we ask the world to follow]]></title><link>http://www.engadget.com/2012/03/22/microsoft-tivo-drop-patent-lawsuit/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.engadget.com/2012/03/22/microsoft-tivo-drop-patent-lawsuit/</guid><comments>http://www.engadget.com/2012/03/22/microsoft-tivo-drop-patent-lawsuit/#comments</comments><description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/03/22/microsoft-tivo-drop-patent-lawsuit/"><img alt="Image" src="http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2012/03/tivo-pause.jpg" style="margin: 12px; float: right;" /></a>At last. A pair of companies decide that bickering (and spending) in the courtroom over patents just isn't worthwhile. In an era where it seems like every technology company under the sun is suing at least one other for nondescript "infringements," TiVo and Microsoft are laying aside their differences. Purportedly, both outfits have reached an agreement "under which both companies will dismiss pending litigation over patents." According to a regulatory filing, nary a patent right was granted to Microsoft by TiVo, but for whatever reason, the two have decided that both can continue operations without any more meddling. It all started <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2011/01/24/microsoft-takes-its-patent-infringement-beef-with-tivo-to-the-it/">early last year</a>, when the folks in Redmond alleged that TiVo was infringing on four of its patents; predictably, TiVo slung one of its many patent-related suits in Microsoft's direction. Those looking to dive fully into the last chapter in this one can hit the links below; for the 99 percent, just scoot your eyes down to the next article and exhale in relief. So, Samsung, Apple -- you guys <a href="http://www.engadget.com/tag/samsung,apple">paying attention</a>?<p style="padding:5px;background:#ddd;border:1px solid #ccc;clear:both;"><a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/03/22/microsoft-tivo-drop-patent-lawsuit/">Microsoft and TiVo agree to drop ongoing patent suits, we ask the world to follow</a> originally appeared on <a href="http://www.engadget.com">Engadget</a> on Thu, 22 Mar 2012 07:38:00 EST.  Please see our <a href="http://www.weblogsinc.com/feed-terms/">terms for use of feeds</a>.</p><h6 style="clear: both; padding: 8px 0 0 0; height: 2px; font-size: 1px; border: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0;"></h6><a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/03/22/microsoft-tivo-drop-patent-lawsuit/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent link to this entry">Permalink</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.engadget.com/forward/20198682/" title="Send this entry to a friend via email">Email this</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/03/22/microsoft-tivo-drop-patent-lawsuit/#comments" title="View reader comments on this entry">Comments</a>]]></description><category>court</category><category>dropped</category><category>hdpostcross</category><category>infringement</category><category>lawsuit</category><category>legal</category><category>microsoft</category><category>patent</category><category>Patent infringement</category><category>PatentInfringement</category><category>suit</category><category>tivo</category><dc:creator><![CDATA[Darren Murph]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 22 Mar 2012 07:38:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Oracle's final damage claim against Google well under $100 million]]></title><link>http://www.engadget.com/2012/03/20/oracles-final-damage-claim-against-google-well-under-100-milli/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.engadget.com/2012/03/20/oracles-final-damage-claim-against-google-well-under-100-milli/</guid><comments>http://www.engadget.com/2012/03/20/oracles-final-damage-claim-against-google-well-under-100-milli/#comments</comments><description><![CDATA[<div style="text-align: center;"> <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/03/20/oracles-final-damage-claim-against-google-well-under-100-milli/"><img alt="Oracle vs. Google" src="http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2011/06/oracle-v-google-1308942960.jpg" style="width: 593px; height: 376px; margin: 4px;" /></a></div>My, my, my, how the mighty have fallen. In this case, the mighty is the roughly $6 billion Oracle initially sought in its <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/12/oracle-sues-google-over-java-patent-infringement-in-android/">suit against Google</a>. By September of last year that number had dropped to a comparatively paltry <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2011/09/22/oracle-amends-complaint-against-google-to-2-billion-risks-the/">$2 billion</a>, which was still too high for presiding Judge William Alsup. Now that has plummeted precipitously, with Oracle's new starting figure sitting at $32.3 million. Of course, the final total for the damages will likely be higher than that, but we'd be mighty shocked if the ultimate settlement was even close to $100 million. Google's own estimates put the valuation at between $37.5 million and $46.6 million -- a far cry from the <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2011/07/25/judge-tells-oracle-to-rethink-2-6-billion-claim-against-google/">$100 million starting point</a> Alsup had suggested in July of last year. Now all that's left is for <a href="http://www.engadget.com/tag/oracle,google">this sucker</a> to actually go to trial. Hit up the source to read the full filing.<p style="padding:5px;background:#ddd;border:1px solid #ccc;clear:both;"><a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/03/20/oracles-final-damage-claim-against-google-well-under-100-milli/">Oracle's final damage claim against Google well under $100 million</a> originally appeared on <a href="http://www.engadget.com">Engadget</a> on Tue, 20 Mar 2012 16:38:00 EST.  Please see our <a href="http://www.weblogsinc.com/feed-terms/">terms for use of feeds</a>.</p><h6 style="clear: both; padding: 8px 0 0 0; height: 2px; font-size: 1px; border: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0;"></h6><a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/03/20/oracles-final-damage-claim-against-google-well-under-100-milli/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent link to this entry">Permalink</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.engadget.com/forward/20197340/" title="Send this entry to a friend via email">Email this</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/03/20/oracles-final-damage-claim-against-google-well-under-100-milli/#comments" title="View reader comments on this entry">Comments</a>]]></description><category>android</category><category>copyright</category><category>google</category><category>infringement</category><category>intellectual property</category><category>IntellectualProperty</category><category>ip</category><category>java</category><category>lawsuit</category><category>legal</category><category>litigation</category><category>oracle</category><category>patent</category><category>patents</category><dc:creator><![CDATA[Terrence O'Brien]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 20 Mar 2012 16:38:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Apple's second slide-to-unlock case against Samsung stayed in Germany]]></title><link>http://www.engadget.com/2012/03/16/apple-samsung-slide-to-unlock-patent-case-germany/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.engadget.com/2012/03/16/apple-samsung-slide-to-unlock-patent-case-germany/</guid><comments>http://www.engadget.com/2012/03/16/apple-samsung-slide-to-unlock-patent-case-germany/#comments</comments><description><![CDATA[<div style="text-align: center;"> <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/03/16/apple-samsung-slide-to-unlock-patent-case-germany/"><img  src="http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2012/03/samsung-slide-to-unlock.jpg" style="border-width: 0px; border-style: solid; margin: 4px;" /></a></div>Nothing like a little drama in the <strike>ongoing</strike> never-ending saga <a href="http://www.engadget.com/tag/samsung,apple">between</a> Samsung and Apple to spice up your Friday morning, eh? As legions of consumers are cashing in a vacation day in order to pick up one of Apple's <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/03/07/apple-new-ipad-hands-on/">newest iPads</a>, a court in Mannheim, Germany has stayed Apple's second slide-to-unlock case. According to <i>FOSS Patents</i>, the decision was made for the "duration of a parallel proceeding before the German Patent and Trademark Office that could lead to the revocation, in whole or in part, of Apple's slide-to-unlock utility model." Purportedly, the judge said that the court was not convinced of the "validity of that intellectual property right in all respects, with particular concern about the broadest group of claims." Lawyers who'd love to do nothing more than read about things related to their profession can tap that source link; everyone else can resume their best efforts of <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/03/16/steve-wozniak-waiting-in-line/">trying to be Woz</a> when they grow up.<p style="padding:5px;background:#ddd;border:1px solid #ccc;clear:both;"><a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/03/16/apple-samsung-slide-to-unlock-patent-case-germany/">Apple's second slide-to-unlock case against Samsung stayed in Germany</a> originally appeared on <a href="http://www.engadget.com">Engadget</a> on Fri, 16 Mar 2012 11:21:00 EST.  Please see our <a href="http://www.weblogsinc.com/feed-terms/">terms for use of feeds</a>.</p><h6 style="clear: both; padding: 8px 0 0 0; height: 2px; font-size: 1px; border: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0;"></h6><a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/03/16/apple-samsung-slide-to-unlock-patent-case-germany/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent link to this entry">Permalink</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.engadget.com/forward/20194990/" title="Send this entry to a friend via email">Email this</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/03/16/apple-samsung-slide-to-unlock-patent-case-germany/#comments" title="View reader comments on this entry">Comments</a>]]></description><category>apple</category><category>case</category><category>court</category><category>german</category><category>germany</category><category>lawsuit</category><category>legal</category><category>Mannheim</category><category>mobilepostcross</category><category>patent</category><category>samsung</category><category>slide to unlock</category><category>SlideToUnlock</category><category>suit</category><category>trademark</category><dc:creator><![CDATA[Darren Murph]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 16 Mar 2012 11:21:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[The Hague to Samsung: no injunction for 3G patent infringement if Apple's willing to FRAND license]]></title><link>http://www.engadget.com/2012/03/14/the-hague-to-samsung-no-injunction-for-3g-patent-infringement-i/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.engadget.com/2012/03/14/the-hague-to-samsung-no-injunction-for-3g-patent-infringement-i/</guid><comments>http://www.engadget.com/2012/03/14/the-hague-to-samsung-no-injunction-for-3g-patent-infringement-i/#comments</comments><description><![CDATA[<div style="text-align: center;"> <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/03/14/the-hague-to-samsung-no-injunction-for-3g-patent-infringement-i/"><img alt="The Hague tells Samsung: no injunctions for alleged 3G patent infringement if Apple's willing to license the IP " src="http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2012/03/apple-v-sammy.jpg" style="border-width: 0px; border-style: solid; margin: 4px;" /></a></div>Since it's been more than 24 hours since the last bit of news in the ongoing legal battle between <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/03/12/apple-simplifies-its-itc-suit-against-samsung-drops-one-patent/">Samsung and Apple</a>, we figured you could do with another litigation revelation. Late <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2011/10/14/dutch-court-turns-down-samungs-request-to-block-apple-products/">last year</a>, the Hague shot down Sammy's request to prevent iPads and iPhones from being sold in the Netherlands. Today, the Dutch court went a step further, telling the Korean company that it can't pursue any other injunctions based upon its <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/08/apple-etsi-frand-licensing-policy/">FRAND</a> 3G patents as long as Cupertino's willing to talk about licensing them. Not only that, it went on to hold that those patents don't apply in Sammy's case against the iPhone 4S due to the theory of patent exhaustion. The allegedly infringing bits in the handset are made by Qualcomm, who licensed the technology directly from Samsung -- granting Apple protection under the license as a third party beneficiary -- and Apple prevailed using arguments not unlike those it made in a suit it recently filed <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/10/apple-sues-motorola-over-qualcomm-license-makes-us-dream-of-a-w/">against Motorola</a>. Score one more legal victory for Tim Cook and company, but as you already know, the war is far from over.<p style="padding:5px;background:#ddd;border:1px solid #ccc;clear:both;"><a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/03/14/the-hague-to-samsung-no-injunction-for-3g-patent-infringement-i/">The Hague to Samsung: no injunction for 3G patent infringement if Apple's willing to FRAND license</a> originally appeared on <a href="http://www.engadget.com">Engadget</a> on Wed, 14 Mar 2012 17:20:00 EST.  Please see our <a href="http://www.weblogsinc.com/feed-terms/">terms for use of feeds</a>.</p><h6 style="clear: both; padding: 8px 0 0 0; height: 2px; font-size: 1px; border: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0;"></h6><a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/03/14/the-hague-to-samsung-no-injunction-for-3g-patent-infringement-i/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent link to this entry">Permalink</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.engadget.com/forward/20193481/" title="Send this entry to a friend via email">Email this</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/03/14/the-hague-to-samsung-no-injunction-for-3g-patent-infringement-i/#comments" title="View reader comments on this entry">Comments</a>]]></description><category>3g</category><category>apple</category><category>dutch</category><category>frand</category><category>intellectual property</category><category>IntellectualProperty</category><category>ip</category><category>lawsuit</category><category>legal</category><category>license</category><category>licensing</category><category>litigation</category><category>netherlands</category><category>patent</category><category>patent exhaustion</category><category>PatentExhaustion</category><category>patents</category><category>qualcomm</category><category>samsung</category><category>the hague</category><category>TheHague</category><dc:creator><![CDATA[Michael Gorman]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 14 Mar 2012 17:20:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Yahoo hits Facebook with patent infringement lawsuit]]></title><link>http://www.engadget.com/2012/03/12/yahoo-hits-facebook-with-patent-infringement-lawsuit/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.engadget.com/2012/03/12/yahoo-hits-facebook-with-patent-infringement-lawsuit/</guid><comments>http://www.engadget.com/2012/03/12/yahoo-hits-facebook-with-patent-infringement-lawsuit/#comments</comments><description><![CDATA[<div style="text-align: center;"> <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/03/12/yahoo-hits-facebook-with-patent-infringement-lawsuit/"><img alt="" src="http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2012/02/yahoo-bill-board-ice-cream.jpg" style="width: 600px; height: 365px; border-width: 0px; border-style: solid;" /></a></div><div> Yahoo has seen some fairly big <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/07/yahoos-chairman-and-three-other/">shakeups</a> within the company recently, and it looks like it's now also trying another change in tactics. As <em>AllThingsD</em> reports, Yahoo has today filed what's being described as a "massive" patent infringement lawsuit against none other than Facebook. That suit concerns ten patents in all, which cover everything from advertising and privacy measures to messaging and social networking itself. As detailed in the complaint (viewable at the source link below), Yahoo alleges that Facebook is infringing on those patents left and right, including in such core features as the News Feed, user profiles, and its advertising methods. Yahoo went on to say in a statement that it has licensed its patents to others but that the "matter with Facebook remains unresolved" and that it's therefore "compelled to seek redress in federal court," further noting that it's "confident" it will prevail.<br /> <br /> For its part, Facebook says that it's "disappointed that Yahoo's effort to engage with us was limited to a few short phone calls and that we continue to learn of new developments about a long-time partner through the press," adding that "we will defend ourselves vigorously against these puzzling actions."</div><p style="padding:5px;background:#ddd;border:1px solid #ccc;clear:both;"><a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/03/12/yahoo-hits-facebook-with-patent-infringement-lawsuit/">Yahoo hits Facebook with patent infringement lawsuit</a> originally appeared on <a href="http://www.engadget.com">Engadget</a> on Mon, 12 Mar 2012 16:44:00 EST.  Please see our <a href="http://www.weblogsinc.com/feed-terms/">terms for use of feeds</a>.</p><h6 style="clear: both; padding: 8px 0 0 0; height: 2px; font-size: 1px; border: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0;"></h6><a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/03/12/yahoo-hits-facebook-with-patent-infringement-lawsuit/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent link to this entry">Permalink</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.engadget.com/forward/20191598/" title="Send this entry to a friend via email">Email this</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/03/12/yahoo-hits-facebook-with-patent-infringement-lawsuit/#comments" title="View reader comments on this entry">Comments</a>]]></description><category>facebook</category><category>lawsuit</category><category>patent</category><category>patent infringement</category><category>patent lawsuit</category><category>PatentInfringement</category><category>PatentLawsuit</category><category>patents</category><category>social network</category><category>social networking</category><category>SocialNetwork</category><category>SocialNetworking</category><category>yahoo</category><dc:creator><![CDATA[Donald Melanson]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 12 Mar 2012 16:44:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Apple simplifies its ITC suit against Samsung: drops one patent and several claims from two more]]></title><link>http://www.engadget.com/2012/03/12/apple-simplifies-its-itc-suit-against-samsung-drops-one-patent/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.engadget.com/2012/03/12/apple-simplifies-its-itc-suit-against-samsung-drops-one-patent/</guid><comments>http://www.engadget.com/2012/03/12/apple-simplifies-its-itc-suit-against-samsung-drops-one-patent/#comments</comments><description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/03/12/apple-simplifies-its-itc-suit-against-samsung-drops-one-patent/"><img src="http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2012/03/samsung-apple-240.jpg" style="border-width: 0px; border-style: solid; margin: 4px 12px; float: left;" /></a>While there's been plenty of legal wrangling between <a href="http://www.engadget.com/tag/apple%2C+samsung">Apple and Samsung</a> in Federal courtrooms lately, it's been awhile since we've had news from the parties' parallel proceedings <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2011/07/07/apple-files-itc-request-to-block-import-of-select-samsung-device/">occurring in the ITC</a>. No longer. Last week, Apple received a favorable outcome when the ITC issued its claim construction order, siding with Apple's interpretations of two patents -- for those who aren't familiar, claim construction is the process by which the judge determines the meaning of specific terms in the claims, and it often has great influence on findings of infringement (or non-infringement). The judge found in favor of Samsung regarding one patent in his claim construction order, however, and now Apple has dropped that patent from the proceedings, along with claims from two of its other patents as well. This latest legal maneuvering by Cupertino is pretty standard fare, as paring down the legal issues is something all courts encourage to make the adjudication process more efficient, and Apple is simply distilling its case down to its strongest arguments. Now that the claim construction's complete, next on the docket is the ITC's evidentiary hearing (read: trial) starting May 31st, and afterwards we'll finally get the ITC's decision. Stay tuned.<p style="padding:5px;background:#ddd;border:1px solid #ccc;clear:both;"><a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/03/12/apple-simplifies-its-itc-suit-against-samsung-drops-one-patent/">Apple simplifies its ITC suit against Samsung: drops one patent and several claims from two more</a> originally appeared on <a href="http://www.engadget.com">Engadget</a> on Mon, 12 Mar 2012 14:34:00 EST.  Please see our <a href="http://www.weblogsinc.com/feed-terms/">terms for use of feeds</a>.</p><h6 style="clear: both; padding: 8px 0 0 0; height: 2px; font-size: 1px; border: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0;"></h6><a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/03/12/apple-simplifies-its-itc-suit-against-samsung-drops-one-patent/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent link to this entry">Permalink</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.engadget.com/forward/20191489/" title="Send this entry to a friend via email">Email this</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/03/12/apple-simplifies-its-itc-suit-against-samsung-drops-one-patent/#comments" title="View reader comments on this entry">Comments</a>]]></description><category>apple</category><category>claim construction</category><category>ClaimConstruction</category><category>intellectual property</category><category>IntellectualProperty</category><category>ip</category><category>itc</category><category>lawsuit</category><category>legal</category><category>litigation</category><category>patent</category><category>patents</category><category>samsung</category><dc:creator><![CDATA[Michael Gorman]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 12 Mar 2012 14:34:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Judge says Apple can't pursue patent infringement case against Kodak]]></title><link>http://www.engadget.com/2012/03/08/judge-says-apple-cant-pursue-patent-infringement-case-against-k/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.engadget.com/2012/03/08/judge-says-apple-cant-pursue-patent-infringement-case-against-k/</guid><comments>http://www.engadget.com/2012/03/08/judge-says-apple-cant-pursue-patent-infringement-case-against-k/#comments</comments><description><![CDATA[<div style="text-align: center;"> <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/03/08/judge-says-apple-cant-pursue-patent-infringement-case-against-k/"><img alt="" src="http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2012/02/kodak.jpg" style="width: 600px; height: 302px; border-width: 0px; border-style: solid;" /></a></div>Apple was dealt a setback today in its <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/15/apple-kodak-patent-lawsuit-bankrupt/">efforts</a> to prevent Kodak from selling up to $2.6 billion worth of digital imaging patents, with U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Allan Gropper ruling that it would be an "inappropriate way forward" to allow Apple to <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/03/06/kodak-moves-to-block-apples-latest-patent-suit-from-proceeding/">pursue patent litigation</a> against the bankrupt company. For its part, Apple had argued that one of those patents -- concerning the ability to preview digital photos on an LCD screen -- was "misappropriated" from its own technology, and that Kodak therefore shouldn't be allowed to sell it off as part of the planned sale (something Kodak obviously disputes). On that point, the judge did agree that the matter should be resolved soon, just not in the manner in which Apple had been proceeding, further adding that he "would request that the parties report to me on their efforts to come up with a procedure that truly works."<p style="padding:5px;background:#ddd;border:1px solid #ccc;clear:both;"><a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/03/08/judge-says-apple-cant-pursue-patent-infringement-case-against-k/">Judge says Apple can't pursue patent infringement case against Kodak</a> originally appeared on <a href="http://www.engadget.com">Engadget</a> on Thu, 08 Mar 2012 15:45:00 EST.  Please see our <a href="http://www.weblogsinc.com/feed-terms/">terms for use of feeds</a>.</p><h6 style="clear: both; padding: 8px 0 0 0; height: 2px; font-size: 1px; border: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0;"></h6><a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/03/08/judge-says-apple-cant-pursue-patent-infringement-case-against-k/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent link to this entry">Permalink</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.engadget.com/forward/20189297/" title="Send this entry to a friend via email">Email this</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/03/08/judge-says-apple-cant-pursue-patent-infringement-case-against-k/#comments" title="View reader comments on this entry">Comments</a>]]></description><category>apple</category><category>bankruptcy</category><category>kodak</category><category>lawsuit</category><category>legal</category><category>litigation</category><category>patent</category><category>patent infringement</category><category>patent suit</category><category>PatentInfringement</category><category>patents</category><category>PatentSuit</category><dc:creator><![CDATA[Donald Melanson]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 08 Mar 2012 15:45:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Samsung files yet another lawsuit against Apple in South Korea]]></title><link>http://www.engadget.com/2012/03/07/samsung-v-apple-korea/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.engadget.com/2012/03/07/samsung-v-apple-korea/</guid><comments>http://www.engadget.com/2012/03/07/samsung-v-apple-korea/#comments</comments><description><![CDATA[<div style="text-align: center;"> <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/03/07/samsung-v-apple-korea/"><img src="http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2012/03/stopinthenameoflove-1331114086.jpg" style="border-width: 0px; border-style: solid; margin: 4px;" /></a></div><div> In the <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/03/02/judge-guns-down-samsung-and-apple-patent-lawsuits/">global courtroom conflict</a> that threatens to outlast the Thirty-Years War, <a href="http://www.engadget.com/tag/samsung/">Samsung</a> has commenced yet another lawsuit against <a href="http://www.engadget.com/tag/apple">Apple</a>. Filed in a Seoul court, this particular litigation broadside alleges that Cupertino has infringed patents on the displaying of data, user interface and short text messages -- <em>sigh</em>.</div><p style="padding:5px;background:#ddd;border:1px solid #ccc;clear:both;"><a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/03/07/samsung-v-apple-korea/">Samsung files yet another lawsuit against Apple in South Korea</a> originally appeared on <a href="http://www.engadget.com">Engadget</a> on Wed, 07 Mar 2012 04:57:00 EST.  Please see our <a href="http://www.weblogsinc.com/feed-terms/">terms for use of feeds</a>.</p><h6 style="clear: both; padding: 8px 0 0 0; height: 2px; font-size: 1px; border: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0;"></h6><a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/03/07/samsung-v-apple-korea/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent link to this entry">Permalink</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.engadget.com/forward/20187650/" title="Send this entry to a friend via email">Email this</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/03/07/samsung-v-apple-korea/#comments" title="View reader comments on this entry">Comments</a>]]></description><category>Apple</category><category>Apple v Samsung</category><category>AppleVSamsung</category><category>Lawsuit</category><category>Litigation</category><category>minipost</category><category>Patent</category><category>Patent Litigation</category><category>PatentLitigation</category><category>Patents</category><category>Samsung</category><category>Samsung v Apple</category><category>SamsungVApple</category><category>South Korea</category><category>SouthKorea</category><dc:creator><![CDATA[Daniel Cooper]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 07 Mar 2012 04:57:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Nintendo says it refuses to 'succumb to patent trolls' as it wins Maryland case]]></title><link>http://www.engadget.com/2012/03/02/nintendo-says-it-refuses-to-succumb-to-patent-trolls-as-it-win/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.engadget.com/2012/03/02/nintendo-says-it-refuses-to-succumb-to-patent-trolls-as-it-win/</guid><comments>http://www.engadget.com/2012/03/02/nintendo-says-it-refuses-to-succumb-to-patent-trolls-as-it-win/#comments</comments><description><![CDATA[<div style="text-align: center;"> <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/03/02/nintendo-says-it-refuses-to-succumb-to-patent-trolls-as-it-win/"><img alt="" src="http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2008/10/wii-fit-hands-on-top.jpg" style="width: 600px; height: 450px; border-width: 0px; border-style: solid;" /></a></div><div> Nintendo issued a fairly terse press release earlier today, announcing that it has prevailed in a US patent lawsuit for the "third consecutive time this year." That particular case concerned Nintendo's <a href="http://www.engadget.com/tag/balanceboard">Wii Balance Board</a> accessory and <a href="http://www.engadget.com/tag/wiifit">Wii Fit</a> and Wii Fit Plus software, which a company called IA Labs said infringed on one of its patents (No. 7,121,982); a claim that was dismissed by the Maryland District Court judge in the case. IA Labs was also more or less dismissed as a company by Nintendo's senior vice president of legal and general counsel Rick Flamm, who said that "we vigorously defend patent lawsuits when we firmly believe that we have not infringed another party's patent," and that "we refuse to succumb to patent trolls." The company's full statement can be found after the break.</div><p><a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/03/02/nintendo-says-it-refuses-to-succumb-to-patent-trolls-as-it-win/" rel="bookmark">Continue reading <em>Nintendo says it refuses to 'succumb to patent trolls' as it wins Maryland case</em></a></p><p style="padding:5px;background:#ddd;border:1px solid #ccc;clear:both;"><a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/03/02/nintendo-says-it-refuses-to-succumb-to-patent-trolls-as-it-win/">Nintendo says it refuses to 'succumb to patent trolls' as it wins Maryland case</a> originally appeared on <a href="http://www.engadget.com">Engadget</a> on Fri, 02 Mar 2012 21:47:00 EST.  Please see our <a href="http://www.weblogsinc.com/feed-terms/">terms for use of feeds</a>.</p><h6 style="clear: both; padding: 8px 0 0 0; height: 2px; font-size: 1px; border: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0;"></h6><a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/03/02/nintendo-says-it-refuses-to-succumb-to-patent-trolls-as-it-win/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent link to this entry">Permalink</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.engadget.com/forward/20184921/" title="Send this entry to a friend via email">Email this</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/03/02/nintendo-says-it-refuses-to-succumb-to-patent-trolls-as-it-win/#comments" title="View reader comments on this entry">Comments</a>]]></description><category>balance board</category><category>BalanceBoard</category><category>ia labs</category><category>IaLabs</category><category>lawsuit</category><category>legal</category><category>maryland</category><category>nintendo</category><category>patent</category><category>patent infringement</category><category>patent troll</category><category>PatentInfringement</category><category>patents</category><category>PatentTroll</category><category>wii</category><category>wii fit</category><category>wii fit plus</category><category>WiiFit</category><category>WiiFitPlus</category><dc:creator><![CDATA[Donald Melanson]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 02 Mar 2012 21:47:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[ITC to review its decision on Microsoft, Motorola patent case]]></title><link>http://www.engadget.com/2012/03/02/itc-to-review-its-decision-on-microsoft-motorola-patent-case/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.engadget.com/2012/03/02/itc-to-review-its-decision-on-microsoft-motorola-patent-case/</guid><comments>http://www.engadget.com/2012/03/02/itc-to-review-its-decision-on-microsoft-motorola-patent-case/#comments</comments><description><![CDATA[<div style="text-align: center;"> <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/03/02/itc-to-review-its-decision-on-microsoft-motorola-patent-case/"><img alt="" src="http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2011/12/2011-12-20-motopic.jpg" style="width: 600px; height: 381px; border-width: 0px; border-style: solid; margin-left: 16px; margin-right: 16px;" /></a></div>Remember <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2011/12/20/itc-judge-issues-initial-ruling-that-motorola-infringes-microsof/">back in December</a> when the International Trade Commission ruled on a <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2010/10/01/microsoft-files-itc-complaint-against-motorola-over-alleged-andr/">Microsoft complaint from 2010</a> that Motorola's Android products infringed on seven of its patents, siding with Microsoft initially on one of them? Since that's so hard to forget, it probably comes as no surprise to hear that the ITC announced today it would review the decision in part, as Motorola noted in its press release at the time. Don't expect a final ruling for another month or so (we'd keep that NFL Draft window clear if we were you), but if you're looking for details, <i>FOSSPatents</i> has the notes on which segments are under review. Don't worry if you miss a step though, we'll be sure to let you know once it's all over (hint: it will never, ever be over.)<p style="padding:5px;background:#ddd;border:1px solid #ccc;clear:both;"><a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/03/02/itc-to-review-its-decision-on-microsoft-motorola-patent-case/">ITC to review its decision on Microsoft, Motorola patent case</a> originally appeared on <a href="http://www.engadget.com">Engadget</a> on Fri, 02 Mar 2012 20:25:00 EST.  Please see our <a href="http://www.weblogsinc.com/feed-terms/">terms for use of feeds</a>.</p><h6 style="clear: both; padding: 8px 0 0 0; height: 2px; font-size: 1px; border: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0;"></h6><a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/03/02/itc-to-review-its-decision-on-microsoft-motorola-patent-case/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent link to this entry">Permalink</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.engadget.com/forward/20185022/" title="Send this entry to a friend via email">Email this</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/03/02/itc-to-review-its-decision-on-microsoft-motorola-patent-case/#comments" title="View reader comments on this entry">Comments</a>]]></description><category>android</category><category>complaint</category><category>google</category><category>intellectual property</category><category>IntellectualProperty</category><category>international trade commission</category><category>InternationalTradeCommission</category><category>itc</category><category>lawsuit</category><category>microsoft</category><category>mobilepostcross</category><category>motorola</category><category>patent</category><category>patent infringement</category><category>PatentInfringement</category><category>review</category><category>uspto</category><dc:creator><![CDATA[Richard Lawler]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 02 Mar 2012 20:25:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[German court guns down third Samsung patent lawsuit, plus one from Apple]]></title><link>http://www.engadget.com/2012/03/02/judge-guns-down-samsung-and-apple-patent-lawsuits/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.engadget.com/2012/03/02/judge-guns-down-samsung-and-apple-patent-lawsuits/</guid><comments>http://www.engadget.com/2012/03/02/judge-guns-down-samsung-and-apple-patent-lawsuits/#comments</comments><description><![CDATA[<div style="text-align: center;"> <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/03/02/judge-guns-down-samsung-and-apple-patent-lawsuits/"><img src="http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2012/03/stopinthenameoflove.jpg" style="border-width: 0px; border-style: solid; margin: 4px;" /></a></div>Mannheim judge Andreas Voss is nothing if not decisive. <em>FOSSPatents</em> reports he's just thrown out a third Samsung v. Apple patent lawsuit relating to use of the 3G/UMTS standard. Not to be one-sided, he's also rejected the first of two Apple v. Samsung cases involving slide-to-unlock patents. Weirdly, this latter decision appears to contradict a recent ruling by a <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/16/apple-granted-injunction-in-germany-patent-suit-motorola-phones/">Munich court</a> that upheld a similar slide-to-unlock claim by Apple against Motorola, but Judge Voss and his trigger-finger aren't bothered. Keep it up old boy, and maybe we can have this whole thing nailed by the summer. Oh wait, no, both sides are expected to appeal.<p style="padding:5px;background:#ddd;border:1px solid #ccc;clear:both;"><a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/03/02/judge-guns-down-samsung-and-apple-patent-lawsuits/">German court guns down third Samsung patent lawsuit, plus one from Apple</a> originally appeared on <a href="http://www.engadget.com">Engadget</a> on Fri, 02 Mar 2012 05:20:00 EST.  Please see our <a href="http://www.weblogsinc.com/feed-terms/">terms for use of feeds</a>.</p><h6 style="clear: both; padding: 8px 0 0 0; height: 2px; font-size: 1px; border: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0;"></h6><a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/03/02/judge-guns-down-samsung-and-apple-patent-lawsuits/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent link to this entry">Permalink</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.engadget.com/forward/20184330/" title="Send this entry to a friend via email">Email this</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/03/02/judge-guns-down-samsung-and-apple-patent-lawsuits/#comments" title="View reader comments on this entry">Comments</a>]]></description><category>apple</category><category>apple vs samsung</category><category>AppleVsSamsung</category><category>fosspatents</category><category>germany</category><category>lawsuit</category><category>mannheim</category><category>patent</category><category>samsung</category><category>samsung vs apple</category><category>SamsungVsApple</category><category>slide-to-unlock</category><dc:creator><![CDATA[Sharif Sakr]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 02 Mar 2012 05:20:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Apple scores temporary ruling in Motorola battle, can keep selling iPads, iPhones in Germany]]></title><link>http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/27/apple-scores-temporary-ruling-in-motorola-battle-can-keep-selli/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/27/apple-scores-temporary-ruling-in-motorola-battle-can-keep-selli/</guid><comments>http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/27/apple-scores-temporary-ruling-in-motorola-battle-can-keep-selli/#comments</comments><description><![CDATA[<div style="text-align: center;"> <img alt="" src="http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2011/10/2011-10-18-dsc02554.jpg" style="width: 600px; height: 400px;" /></div>Apple today won a victory in Germany in its on-going legal dispute with Motorola Mobility. An appeals court in that country ruled that Cupertino can continue to offer its wares in its online store while it appeals a ruling that temporarily barred their sale. According to the court, the continuation of such a ban on iPads and iPhones would affect Motorola's abilities to maintain its "duties under antitrust rules." The temporary ruling is the latest in an on-going legal <a href="http://www.engadget.com/tag/motorola,apple,lawsuit">tug of war</a> between the two handset makers in that country.<p style="padding:5px;background:#ddd;border:1px solid #ccc;clear:both;"><a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/27/apple-scores-temporary-ruling-in-motorola-battle-can-keep-selli/">Apple scores temporary ruling in Motorola battle, can keep selling iPads, iPhones in Germany</a> originally appeared on <a href="http://www.engadget.com">Engadget</a> on Mon, 27 Feb 2012 09:05:00 EST.  Please see our <a href="http://www.weblogsinc.com/feed-terms/">terms for use of feeds</a>.</p><h6 style="clear: both; padding: 8px 0 0 0; height: 2px; font-size: 1px; border: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0;"></h6><a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/27/apple-scores-temporary-ruling-in-motorola-battle-can-keep-selli/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent link to this entry">Permalink</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.engadget.com/forward/20180377/" title="Send this entry to a friend via email">Email this</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/27/apple-scores-temporary-ruling-in-motorola-battle-can-keep-selli/#comments" title="View reader comments on this entry">Comments</a>]]></description><category>apple</category><category>ban</category><category>essential patent</category><category>essential patents</category><category>EssentialPatent</category><category>EssentialPatents</category><category>germany</category><category>lawsuit</category><category>mobilepostcross</category><category>motorola</category><category>patent</category><category>patent dispute</category><category>PatentDispute</category><category>temporary ruling</category><category>TemporaryRuling</category><dc:creator><![CDATA[Brian Heater]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 27 Feb 2012 09:05:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Comcast sues Sprint with patent infringement, says two can play that game]]></title><link>http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/22/comcast-sues-sprint/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/22/comcast-sues-sprint/</guid><comments>http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/22/comcast-sues-sprint/#comments</comments><description><![CDATA[<div style="text-align: center;"> <img  src="http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2012/02/comcast1.jpg" style="border-width: 0px; border-style: solid; margin: 4px;" /></div>Pro tip: when suing the pants off another company for patent infringement, it's a good idea to make sure you're not violating any of that same company's intellectual property. That's the lesson we imagine Sprint is learning at this very moment. Just two months after it <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2011/12/21/sprint-sues-time-warner-comcast-cable-one-and-cox-for-infringi/">filed a lawsuit</a> against Comcast for getting all up in its VoIP business, the digital services company is now ready to go Comcastic on the Now Network's derriere, as it has filed a lawsuit of its own in a Pennsylvania court. While it's not directly tied into December's case, it seems oddly coincidental that this new suit came into existence so soon after Sprint fired the first shot.<br /><br />Comcast and subsidiary TVWorks, LLC allege that Sprint is guilty of violating four wireless patents: its wireless broadband cards, Vision Pack and other SMS services, MMS transfers and voice and data using IP / MPLS backhaul. That's a pretty hefty portion of the carrier's basic operations, it seems, and we're assuming that a settlement or licensing agreement will be the end result here. Regardless, as the adage says, what goes around comes around.<p style="padding:5px;background:#ddd;border:1px solid #ccc;clear:both;"><a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/22/comcast-sues-sprint/">Comcast sues Sprint with patent infringement, says two can play that game</a> originally appeared on <a href="http://www.engadget.com">Engadget</a> on Wed, 22 Feb 2012 13:59:00 EST.  Please see our <a href="http://www.weblogsinc.com/feed-terms/">terms for use of feeds</a>.</p><h6 style="clear: both; padding: 8px 0 0 0; height: 2px; font-size: 1px; border: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0;"></h6><a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/22/comcast-sues-sprint/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent link to this entry">Permalink</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.engadget.com/forward/20177318/" title="Send this entry to a friend via email">Email this</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/22/comcast-sues-sprint/#comments" title="View reader comments on this entry">Comments</a>]]></description><category>comcast</category><category>lawsuit</category><category>legal</category><category>mobilepostcross</category><category>patent</category><category>patent infringement</category><category>PatentInfringement</category><category>sprint</category><category>tvworks</category><dc:creator><![CDATA[Brad Molen]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 22 Feb 2012 13:59:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Microsoft files EU antitrust complaint against Motorola Mobility, claims unfair licensing practices]]></title><link>http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/22/microsoft-files-eu-antitrust-complaint-against-motorola-mobility/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/22/microsoft-files-eu-antitrust-complaint-against-motorola-mobility/</guid><comments>http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/22/microsoft-files-eu-antitrust-complaint-against-motorola-mobility/#comments</comments><description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/22/microsoft-files-eu-antitrust-complaint-against-motorola-mobility/"><img src="http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2012/02/motolog.png" style="border-width: 0px; border-style: solid; margin: 10px; float: left;" /></a>Early last week, the European Commission <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/13/google-gets-eu-approval-for-its-purchase-of-motorola-mobility/">gave Google its blessing</a> regarding the purchase of Motorola Mobility. But the honeymoon has been anything but relaxing for the search giant and its latest power-play acquisition, after <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/18/apple-asks-eu-regulators-to-step-in-on-motorola-patent-dispute/">Apple filed an antitrust complaint</a>, claiming a breach of the company's FRAND obligations. Now Microsoft is waiving the antitrust flag as well, claiming that the company is reportedly abusing its <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/10/apple-motorola-germany-patent-lawsuit">standard-essential patents</a>, impeding fair access to patents that are fundamental to regular device function -- this time dealing with video streaming and wireless connectivity. Microsoft Deputy General Counsel Dave Heiner has posted an appeal to the company's TechNet blog, outlining the issue and explaining that "Motorola is attempting to block sales of Windows PCs, our Xbox game console and other products," further claiming that "Motorola is on a path to use standard essential patents to kill video on the Web, and Google as its new owner doesn't seem to be willing to change course." The key issue at hand is patent pricing -- Microsoft claims that Motorola is demanding an impossibly high royalty of $22.50 for a $1,000 laptop, and that only covers fees for H.264 licensing. It's no secret that Motorola's patent portfolio was <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2011/08/15/editorial-engadget-on-googles-motorola-mobility-acquisition/">a key component</a> of Google's acquisition, and so far it doesn't appear that the company is making any suggestion that Motorola ease up on licensing fees. As always, we'll be keeping an eye on the process, but hit up the source link below for the full scoop from MS.<p style="padding:5px;background:#ddd;border:1px solid #ccc;clear:both;"><a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/22/microsoft-files-eu-antitrust-complaint-against-motorola-mobility/">Microsoft files EU antitrust complaint against Motorola Mobility, claims unfair licensing practices</a> originally appeared on <a href="http://www.engadget.com">Engadget</a> on Wed, 22 Feb 2012 09:19:00 EST.  Please see our <a href="http://www.weblogsinc.com/feed-terms/">terms for use of feeds</a>.</p><h6 style="clear: both; padding: 8px 0 0 0; height: 2px; font-size: 1px; border: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0;"></h6><a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/22/microsoft-files-eu-antitrust-complaint-against-motorola-mobility/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent link to this entry">Permalink</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.engadget.com/forward/20176915/" title="Send this entry to a friend via email">Email this</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/22/microsoft-files-eu-antitrust-complaint-against-motorola-mobility/#comments" title="View reader comments on this entry">Comments</a>]]></description><category>apple</category><category>court</category><category>cupertino</category><category>etsi</category><category>europe</category><category>European Commission</category><category>EuropeanCommission</category><category>FRAND</category><category>google</category><category>infringement</category><category>law</category><category>lawsuit</category><category>legal</category><category>microsoft</category><category>motorola</category><category>motorola mobility</category><category>MotorolaMobility</category><category>patent</category><category>policy</category><category>standards</category><category>transparency</category><category>umts</category><dc:creator><![CDATA[Zach Honig]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 22 Feb 2012 09:19:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Oracle drops patent from Google lawsuit, Google moves to strike Oracle's third damages report]]></title><link>http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/20/oracle-drops-patent-from-google-lawsuit-google-moves-to-strike/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/20/oracle-drops-patent-from-google-lawsuit-google-moves-to-strike/</guid><comments>http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/20/oracle-drops-patent-from-google-lawsuit-google-moves-to-strike/#comments</comments><description><![CDATA[<div style="text-align: center;"> <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/20/oracle-drops-patent-from-google-lawsuit-google-moves-to-strike/"><img alt="Oracle drops patent from Google lawsuit, Google moves to strike Oracle's third damages report" src="http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2012/02/2010-08-13androidga.jpg" style="border-width: 0px; border-style: solid; margin: 4px;" /></a></div>After much sound and fury in its <a href="http://www.engadget.com/tag/oracle%2C+google">legal proceedings</a> for IP infringement against Google, Oracle's claims continue to be whittled away. Judge Alsup has been on Oracle's case to downgrade its damages claims for months now, and on Friday, he got yet another reason to do so. Ellison's crew has finally withdrawn the last remaining claim of patent number 6,192,476 from the litigation -- the very same patent that had 17 of 21 claims <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2011/06/23/oracle-v-google-update-uspto-rejects-several-patent-claims-le/">wiped out earlier</a> during a USPTO re-examination proceeding. Additionally, Google has filed a motion to strike Oracle's third damages report for, <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2011/09/22/oracle-amends-complaint-against-google-to-2-billion-risks-the/">once again</a>, artificially inflating the monetary damages in its <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/01/17/judge-attacks-oracles-stratospheric-damages-claim-against-goo/">expert report</a>. No one can say for sure how the judge will rule on that motion, but given that Oracle's got less IP than ever with which to allege infringement, it seems likely that the Court will send it back to the damages drawing board.<p style="padding:5px;background:#ddd;border:1px solid #ccc;clear:both;"><a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/20/oracle-drops-patent-from-google-lawsuit-google-moves-to-strike/">Oracle drops patent from Google lawsuit, Google moves to strike Oracle's third damages report</a> originally appeared on <a href="http://www.engadget.com">Engadget</a> on Mon, 20 Feb 2012 22:37:00 EST.  Please see our <a href="http://www.weblogsinc.com/feed-terms/">terms for use of feeds</a>.</p><h6 style="clear: both; padding: 8px 0 0 0; height: 2px; font-size: 1px; border: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0;"></h6><a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/20/oracle-drops-patent-from-google-lawsuit-google-moves-to-strike/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent link to this entry">Permalink</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.engadget.com/forward/20175665/" title="Send this entry to a friend via email">Email this</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/20/oracle-drops-patent-from-google-lawsuit-google-moves-to-strike/#comments" title="View reader comments on this entry">Comments</a>]]></description><category>android</category><category>copyright</category><category>google</category><category>infringement</category><category>intellectual property</category><category>IntellectualProperty</category><category>ip</category><category>java</category><category>lawsuit</category><category>legal</category><category>litigation</category><category>oracle</category><category>patent</category><category>patents</category><dc:creator><![CDATA[Michael Gorman]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 20 Feb 2012 22:37:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Apple asks EU regulators to step in on Motorola patent dispute]]></title><link>http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/18/apple-asks-eu-regulators-to-step-in-on-motorola-patent-dispute/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/18/apple-asks-eu-regulators-to-step-in-on-motorola-patent-dispute/</guid><comments>http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/18/apple-asks-eu-regulators-to-step-in-on-motorola-patent-dispute/#comments</comments><description><![CDATA[<div style="text-align: center;"> <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/18/apple-asks-eu-regulators-to-step-in-on-motorola-patent-dispute/"><img alt="" src="http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2011/10/2011-10-18-dsc02554.jpg" /></a></div>Apple <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/08/apple-etsi-frand-licensing-policy/">already asked</a> the European Telecommunications Standards Institute for more transparency on FRAND licensing, and now it's seeking a full-blown intervention. Motorola Mobility claims it received a letter on Friday from the European Commission advising there has been a complaint against it from Apple. The letter also stated that Cupertino wants the Commission to enforce the firm's standards-essential patents that breach agreed FRAND commitments. This latest development comes just one day after a German court awarded Apple an injunction against <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/16/apple-granted-injunction-in-germany-patent-suit-motorola-phones/">Motorola's implementation</a> of slide-to-unlock on smartphones, as well as an ongoing saga of <a href="http://www.engadget.com/tag/motorola,apple,lawsuit">similar disputes</a> with the firm. It's also just days after the European Commission approved <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/13/google-gets-eu-approval-for-its-purchase-of-motorola-mobility/">Google's acquisition</a> of the handset maker, based on beliefs that it "does not itself raise competition issues."<p style="padding:5px;background:#ddd;border:1px solid #ccc;clear:both;"><a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/18/apple-asks-eu-regulators-to-step-in-on-motorola-patent-dispute/">Apple asks EU regulators to step in on Motorola patent dispute</a> originally appeared on <a href="http://www.engadget.com">Engadget</a> on Sat, 18 Feb 2012 10:45:00 EST.  Please see our <a href="http://www.weblogsinc.com/feed-terms/">terms for use of feeds</a>.</p><h6 style="clear: both; padding: 8px 0 0 0; height: 2px; font-size: 1px; border: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0;"></h6><a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/18/apple-asks-eu-regulators-to-step-in-on-motorola-patent-dispute/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent link to this entry">Permalink</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.engadget.com/forward/20174776/" title="Send this entry to a friend via email">Email this</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/18/apple-asks-eu-regulators-to-step-in-on-motorola-patent-dispute/#comments" title="View reader comments on this entry">Comments</a>]]></description><category>apple</category><category>court</category><category>cupertino</category><category>etsi</category><category>europe</category><category>European Commission</category><category>EuropeanCommission</category><category>FRAND</category><category>google</category><category>infringement</category><category>law</category><category>lawsuit</category><category>legal</category><category>motorola</category><category>motorola mobility</category><category>MotorolaMobility</category><category>patent</category><category>policy</category><category>standards</category><category>transparency</category><category>umts</category><dc:creator><![CDATA[James Trew]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Sat, 18 Feb 2012 10:45:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Apple v. Samsung: Cupertino's latest complaint alleges 17 devices infringe 8 of its patents]]></title><link>http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/16/apple-v-samsung-cupertinos-latest-complaint-alleges-17-device/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/16/apple-v-samsung-cupertinos-latest-complaint-alleges-17-device/</guid><comments>http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/16/apple-v-samsung-cupertinos-latest-complaint-alleges-17-device/#comments</comments><description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/16/apple-v-samsung-cupertinos-latest-complaint-alleges-17-device/"><img alt="Apple v. Samsung: Cupertino's latest complaint alleges 17 devices infringe 8 of its patents" src="http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2012/02/stopinthenameofapple-1323372041.jpg" style="border-width: 0px; border-style: solid; margin: 4px 12px; float: left;" /></a>We were waiting for the details of <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/10/apple-seeks-injunction-against-samsung-in-california-with-newly/">Apple's new lawsuit</a> in its global battle against Samsung, and now that the court has posted the complaint, we have them. These fresh allegations claim Sammy has... you guessed it, infringed upon Apple's intellectual property. Turns out, there are eight patents at issue, with four of the patents in question having been granted since the last time Apple filed suit against the Korean firm. Among these are patents for missed call management, slide-to-unlock and data-syncing technology. Apple isn't just targeting the <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2011/11/24/galaxy-nexus-hspa-review/">Galaxy Nexus</a> with this suit as previously thought, either. In fact, at least 17 devices are alleged to have infringed, including all the <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2011/08/30/galaxy-s-ii-finally-lands-on-american-shores-for-sprint-t-mobil/">US Galaxy S II variants</a>, both the Galaxy Player 4.0 and 5.0, the <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2011/11/21/samsung-galaxy-tab-7-0-plus-review/">Galaxy Tab 7.0 Plus</a> and Galaxy Tab 8.9. So, should the Northern District of California decide to grant Apple's request for a preliminary injunction, a hefty chunk of Samsung's mobile products will be barred from store shelves here in the States. It'll be a bit before we hear Sammy's side of the story, but for now, you can see all of Apple's latest legal arguments below.<p style="padding:5px;background:#ddd;border:1px solid #ccc;clear:both;"><a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/16/apple-v-samsung-cupertinos-latest-complaint-alleges-17-device/">Apple v. Samsung: Cupertino's latest complaint alleges 17 devices infringe 8 of its patents</a> originally appeared on <a href="http://www.engadget.com">Engadget</a> on Thu, 16 Feb 2012 01:24:00 EST.  Please see our <a href="http://www.weblogsinc.com/feed-terms/">terms for use of feeds</a>.</p><h6 style="clear: both; padding: 8px 0 0 0; height: 2px; font-size: 1px; border: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0;"></h6><a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/16/apple-v-samsung-cupertinos-latest-complaint-alleges-17-device/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent link to this entry">Permalink</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.engadget.com/forward/20172979/" title="Send this entry to a friend via email">Email this</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/16/apple-v-samsung-cupertinos-latest-complaint-alleges-17-device/#comments" title="View reader comments on this entry">Comments</a>]]></description><category>apple</category><category>galaxy nexus</category><category>galaxy player</category><category>galaxy s ii</category><category>galaxy tab</category><category>GalaxyNexus</category><category>GalaxyPlayer</category><category>GalaxySIi</category><category>GalaxyTab</category><category>gsii</category><category>intellectual property</category><category>IntellectualProperty</category><category>ip</category><category>lawsuit</category><category>legal</category><category>litigation</category><category>patent</category><category>patent infringement</category><category>PatentInfringement</category><category>patents</category><category>preliminary injuction</category><category>PreliminaryInjuction</category><category>samsung</category><dc:creator><![CDATA[Michael Gorman]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 16 Feb 2012 01:24:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Apple wants to file patent lawsuit against Kodak, fully aware that Kodak's bankrupt]]></title><link>http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/15/apple-kodak-patent-lawsuit-bankrupt/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/15/apple-kodak-patent-lawsuit-bankrupt/</guid><comments>http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/15/apple-kodak-patent-lawsuit-bankrupt/#comments</comments><description><![CDATA[<div style="text-align: center; "> <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/15/apple-kodak-patent-lawsuit-bankrupt/"><img src="http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2012/02/kodak.jpg" style="border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-top-style: solid; border-right-style: solid; border-bottom-style: solid; border-left-style: solid; margin-left: 4px; margin-right: 4px; margin-top: 4px; margin-bottom: 4px; " /></a></div>Poor Kodak just can't catch a break these days. Nearly a month after <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/01/19/kodak-chapter-11-bankruptcy/">filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy</a> and mere days after <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/09/kodak-to-shutter-digital-camera-production-this-year/">shuttering</a> its digital camera business, the sputtering company now finds itself the target of no less a behemoth than Apple. Yesterday, Cupertino's legal team asked a US Bankruptcy Court for permission to go after Kodak on two legal fronts: with a patent infringement lawsuit in a Manhattan district court, and a corollary complaint in the <a href="http://www.engadget.com/tag/kodak,itc">ITC</a>. According to <em>Bloomberg</em>, Apple's patent suit focuses on technologies that Kodak uses in its line of digital cameras, printers and digital picture frames. Unfortunately for Kodak, printers are one of the product areas it recently decided to focus on, as confirmed in last week's restructuring announcement. Salt, meet wound.<br /><br />These two companies, of course, have been involved in an <a href="http://www.engadget.com/tag/kodak,itc">ongoing ITC battle</a> over Kodak's image transfer technology, with the latest salvo coming last month, when the camera company launched a fresh batch of litigation against both <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/01/10/kodak-files-new-itc-lawsuits-against-apple-and-htc/">Apple and HTC</a>. If the bankruptcy court grants Apple's request, the company will head straight to court, in the hopes of obtaining a block against Kodak's allegedly infringing products. Kodak, meanwhile, could file a request to hold off the district level case until the ITC ruling comes through, though Apple said yesterday that it would press forward, regardless. The company was also quick to point out that it's not legally bound to request permission to sue a court-protected bankrupt company, but did so "out of an abundance of caution," which is really considerate, if you think about it.<div></div><p style="padding:5px;background:#ddd;border:1px solid #ccc;clear:both;"><a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/15/apple-kodak-patent-lawsuit-bankrupt/">Apple wants to file patent lawsuit against Kodak, fully aware that Kodak's bankrupt</a> originally appeared on <a href="http://www.engadget.com">Engadget</a> on Wed, 15 Feb 2012 07:53:00 EST.  Please see our <a href="http://www.weblogsinc.com/feed-terms/">terms for use of feeds</a>.</p><h6 style="clear: both; padding: 8px 0 0 0; height: 2px; font-size: 1px; border: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0;"></h6><a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/15/apple-kodak-patent-lawsuit-bankrupt/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent link to this entry">Permalink</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.engadget.com/forward/20172177/" title="Send this entry to a friend via email">Email this</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/15/apple-kodak-patent-lawsuit-bankrupt/#comments" title="View reader comments on this entry">Comments</a>]]></description><category>apple</category><category>bankruptcy</category><category>bankruptcy court</category><category>BankruptcyCourt</category><category>chapter 11</category><category>Chapter11</category><category>court</category><category>cupertino</category><category>digital camera</category><category>digital picture frame</category><category>DigitalCamera</category><category>DigitalPictureFrame</category><category>international trade commission</category><category>InternationalTradeCommission</category><category>ITC</category><category>kodak</category><category>law</category><category>lawsuit</category><category>legal</category><category>patent</category><category>patent infringement</category><category>PatentInfringement</category><category>printer</category><dc:creator><![CDATA[Amar Toor]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 15 Feb 2012 07:53:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Apple sues Motorola over Qualcomm license, makes us dream of a world without lawyers]]></title><link>http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/10/apple-sues-motorola-over-qualcomm-license-makes-us-dream-of-a-w/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/10/apple-sues-motorola-over-qualcomm-license-makes-us-dream-of-a-w/</guid><comments>http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/10/apple-sues-motorola-over-qualcomm-license-makes-us-dream-of-a-w/#comments</comments><description><![CDATA[<div style="text-align: center;"> <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/10/apple-sues-motorola-over-qualcomm-license-makes-us-dream-of-a-w/"><img alt="Apple Sues Motorola" src="http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2012/02/screen-shot-2012-02-10-at-12-32-47-pm.jpg" style="border-width: 0px; border-style: solid; margin: 4px;" /></a></div>There are literally no words (at least no family-friendly ones) to describe the insanity that is the ongoing legal war between practically every player in the mobile scene. You can't lay the blame entirely at <a href="http://www.engadget.com/tag/apple,lawsuit">Cupertino's</a> stoop either -- <a href="http://www.engadget.com/tag/motorola,lawsuit">Motorola</a>, <a href="http://www.engadget.com/tag/htc,lawsuit">HTC</a> and <a href="http://www.engadget.com/tag/samsung,lawsuit">Samsung</a> all deserve plenty of our ire as well. The tablet and smartphone industry appears to be trying to sue itself out of existence, and Apple's filing today against Motorola Mobility in the US District Court of Southern California is just latest in a long line of legal ploys likely to inspire you to slam your head against a wall. The purveyors of all things "i" has accused Moto of breaching a licensing contract with Qualcomm when Moto hit Apple with four patent claims <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2011/11/04/german-court-grants-injunction-against-apple-for-infringement-of/">in Germany</a>. That license covers wireless technology Qualcomm uses in its MDM6610 chip, and also purportedly covers Qualcomm's customers who purchase and use said chips. Naturally, that bit of silicon is a component in the iPhone 4S, so Apple argues that it's safe under the terms of the contract. Furthermore, Cupertino claims Motorola is barred from suing under the doctrine of exhaustion -- which is a legal defense that once a patented item is sold (i.e. when Moto licensed its technology to Qualcomm), the patentee's control over that item is exhausted and it can't sue anyone else for infringement.<br /><br />So, this new suit filed in San Diego seeks to prevent Motorola from enforcing its claims in Deutschland. It also aims to keep Motorola from suing Apple for its use of Qualcomm components incorporating licensed Moto technology anywhere else. Confused? We won't lie, we are a little bit too, but all is revealed in the complaint found at the source link below.<p style="padding:5px;background:#ddd;border:1px solid #ccc;clear:both;"><a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/10/apple-sues-motorola-over-qualcomm-license-makes-us-dream-of-a-w/">Apple sues Motorola over Qualcomm license, makes us dream of a world without lawyers</a> originally appeared on <a href="http://www.engadget.com">Engadget</a> on Fri, 10 Feb 2012 16:11:00 EST.  Please see our <a href="http://www.weblogsinc.com/feed-terms/">terms for use of feeds</a>.</p><h6 style="clear: both; padding: 8px 0 0 0; height: 2px; font-size: 1px; border: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0;"></h6><a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/10/apple-sues-motorola-over-qualcomm-license-makes-us-dream-of-a-w/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent link to this entry">Permalink</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.engadget.com/forward/20169449/" title="Send this entry to a friend via email">Email this</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/10/apple-sues-motorola-over-qualcomm-license-makes-us-dream-of-a-w/#comments" title="View reader comments on this entry">Comments</a>]]></description><category>apple</category><category>lawsuit</category><category>license</category><category>licensing</category><category>mobilepostcross</category><category>motorola</category><category>motorola mobility</category><category>MotorolaMobility</category><category>patent</category><category>patent dispute</category><category>PatentDispute</category><category>patents</category><category>Qualcomm</category><dc:creator><![CDATA[Terrence O'Brien]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 16:11:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Apple seeks injunction against Samsung in California with newly acquired patents (update: Galaxy Nexus targeted)]]></title><link>http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/10/apple-seeks-injunction-against-samsung-in-california-with-newly/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/10/apple-seeks-injunction-against-samsung-in-california-with-newly/</guid><comments>http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/10/apple-seeks-injunction-against-samsung-in-california-with-newly/#comments</comments><description><![CDATA[<div style="text-align: center;"> <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/10/apple-seeks-injunction-against-samsung-in-california-with-newly/"><img src="http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2012/02/apple-autocorrect-patent.jpg" style="border-width: 0px; border-style: solid; margin: 4px;" /></a></div><div> You can now add one more case to the long list of <a href="http://www.engadget.com/tag/apple,samsung">disputes</a> between Apple and Samsung. As <em>PaidContent</em> reports, Apple filed a lawsuit against Samsung in the Northern District of California federal court on Tuesday, seeking a temporary injunction on the basis of two patents it obtained in December. One of those reportedly concerns the autocorrect feature found on iPhones and iPads, but details on the case otherwise remain a bit light as the complaint itself is still under seal. We'll keep you posted as we get more information.<br /> <br /> <strong>Update: </strong>Some additional details from the complaint have now come to light, and it turns out Apple is citing two additional patents in addition to the pair acquired in December (one of them related to the slide-to-unlock feature). What's more, it's also been revealed that Apple is targeting one specific device in this case: the Samsung Galaxy Nexus. Given the patents, however, it's pretty clear that Apple taking aim at the Android 4.0 operating system rather than the phone's hardware, as it has in earlier cases against Samsung.</div><p style="padding:5px;background:#ddd;border:1px solid #ccc;clear:both;"><a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/10/apple-seeks-injunction-against-samsung-in-california-with-newly/">Apple seeks injunction against Samsung in California with newly acquired patents (update: Galaxy Nexus targeted)</a> originally appeared on <a href="http://www.engadget.com">Engadget</a> on Fri, 10 Feb 2012 14:07:00 EST.  Please see our <a href="http://www.weblogsinc.com/feed-terms/">terms for use of feeds</a>.</p><h6 style="clear: both; padding: 8px 0 0 0; height: 2px; font-size: 1px; border: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0;"></h6><a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/10/apple-seeks-injunction-against-samsung-in-california-with-newly/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent link to this entry">Permalink</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.engadget.com/forward/20169350/" title="Send this entry to a friend via email">Email this</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/10/apple-seeks-injunction-against-samsung-in-california-with-newly/#comments" title="View reader comments on this entry">Comments</a>]]></description><category>android 4.0</category><category>Android4.0</category><category>apple</category><category>california</category><category>galaxy nexus</category><category>GalaxyNexus</category><category>ice cream sandwich</category><category>IceCreamSandwich</category><category>lawsuit</category><category>mobilepostcross</category><category>patent</category><category>patent infringement</category><category>PatentInfringement</category><category>patents</category><category>samsung</category><category>suit</category><dc:creator><![CDATA[Donald Melanson]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 14:07:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[German court dismisses Motorola's patent lawsuit against Apple]]></title><link>http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/10/apple-motorola-germany-patent-lawsuit/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/10/apple-motorola-germany-patent-lawsuit/</guid><comments>http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/10/apple-motorola-germany-patent-lawsuit/#comments</comments><description><![CDATA[<div style="text-align: center; "> <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/10/apple-motorola-germany-patent-lawsuit/"><img src="http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2012/02/pad.jpg" style="border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-top-style: solid; border-right-style: solid; border-bottom-style: solid; border-left-style: solid; margin-left: 4px; margin-right: 4px; margin-top: 4px; margin-bottom: 4px; " /></a></div><div style="text-align: left; "> Motorola suffered a setback in Germany this morning, after a Mannheim Regional Court struck down one of the company's <a href="http://www.engadget.com/tag/apple,motorola,lawsuit">several patent lawsuits</a> against Apple. The patent in question, EP1053613, is considered essential to the 3G/UMTS wireless standard and, more specifically, pertains to a "method and system for generating a complex pseudonoise sequence for processing a code division multiple access [CDMA] signal." Motorola Mobility had argued that Apple's products infringed upon this patent, but Judge Andreas Voss today dismissed these claims, on the basis that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate Cupertino's violation. It's undoubtedly a welcomed victory for Apple, which had been suffering through something of a <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/03/motorola-wins-permanent-injunction-against-apples-icloud-in-ger/">losing streak</a> against Motorola, but their ongoing tug-of-war is <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/06/motorola-apple-2.25-percent-sales-germany/">far from over</a>. Neither Motorola nor Apple have commented on the decision.</div><p style="padding:5px;background:#ddd;border:1px solid #ccc;clear:both;"><a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/10/apple-motorola-germany-patent-lawsuit/">German court dismisses Motorola's patent lawsuit against Apple</a> originally appeared on <a href="http://www.engadget.com">Engadget</a> on Fri, 10 Feb 2012 05:30:00 EST.  Please see our <a href="http://www.weblogsinc.com/feed-terms/">terms for use of feeds</a>.</p><h6 style="clear: both; padding: 8px 0 0 0; height: 2px; font-size: 1px; border: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0;"></h6><a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/10/apple-motorola-germany-patent-lawsuit/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent link to this entry">Permalink</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.engadget.com/forward/20168859/" title="Send this entry to a friend via email">Email this</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/10/apple-motorola-germany-patent-lawsuit/#comments" title="View reader comments on this entry">Comments</a>]]></description><category>3g</category><category>3g umts</category><category>3gUmts</category><category>Andreas Voss</category><category>AndreasVoss</category><category>apple</category><category>court</category><category>germany</category><category>judge</category><category>law</category><category>lawsuit</category><category>legal</category><category>mannheim regional court</category><category>MannheimRegionalCourt</category><category>motorola</category><category>patent</category><category>patent infringement</category><category>PatentInfringement</category><category>umts</category><dc:creator><![CDATA[Amar Toor]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 05:30:00 EST</pubDate></item></channel></rss>
