Apple and Motorola both appeal dismissal ruling from Judge Posner

Apple and Motorola both appeal dismissal ruling from Judge Posner
Last month, Judge Posner dismissed Apple's lawsuit against Motorola Mobility. The Judge ruled that neither side could prove it was damaged by the other side which led to the dismissal. But that didn't satisfy either Apple or Motorola. Both sides have filed an appeal which might have a good chance of reversing some of the claims. According to FOSS Patents, the Federal Circuit reverses at least part of an appealed ruling in 40% of cases. And there are a lot of rulings for the appeals court to reverse since both Apple and Motorola appealed every single decision that Judge Posner made against them.

Apple explicitly listed four rulings it is seeking to reverse including portions of the Court's summary judgment and claim construction orders adverse to Apple (including Docket Nos. 176, 526, 556, 671, 691, 706, 724, 751, 767, 826 and 1005); portions of the court's evidentiary orders (including without limitation Dkt. Nos. 960 and 980) that were adverse to Apple in excluding certain evidence Apple intended to offer; those portions of the Court's May 22, 2012 Opinion and Order adverse to Apple in which the Court struck Apple's damages expert and underlying damages theories (Dkt. No. 956); and those portions of the Court's June 22, 2012 Opinion and Order adverse to Apple granting summary judgment against Apple as it relates to (1) Apple’s damages theories and (2) Apple’s entitlement to an injunction with respect to the Apple patents (Dkt. No. 1038).

Motorola Mobility is seeking reversal of those portions of the Court's summary judgment and claim construction orders that were adverse to Motorola (including without limitation Order of May 20, 2012 not appearing on the docket and Dkt. Nos. 176, 526, 556, 671, 691, 751, 747, 767, 826, 1005, 1038);

those portions of the Court's evidentiary orders (including without limitation Dkt. Nos. 771, 747, 803, 830, 900, 958, 956, 980) that were adverse to Motorola in excluding certain evidence Motorola intended to offer or in precluding Motorola from supplementing its expert reports or record evidence the Court's order denying Motorola's motion to dismiss or transfer this case (including without limitation Dkt. Nos. 66); those portions of the Court's May 22, 2012 Opinion and Order adverse to Motorola in which the Court struck Motorola's damages expert and underlying damages theories (Dkt. No. 956); and those portions of the Court's June 22, 2012 Opinion and Order adverse to Motorola granting summary judgment against Motorola as it relates to (1) Motorola's damages theories and (2) Motorola's entitlement to an injunction with respect to the Motorola patents (Dkt. No. 1038).


Both Apple and Motorola Mobility claim that the court should rule in their favor based on law, but bringing up these issues could lead to a new trial on some of the claims raised. Another possible outcome could be a decision by the Federal Appeals Court to give both parties another chance in District Court. As pointed out by FOSS Patent, Judge Posner did not give Motorola Mobility or Apple guidance that other Judges have provided. Judge Alsup gave Oracle two do-overs of its damage claim against Google while Judge Sabraw in the Southern District of California told Apple how to fix its filing against Motorola in trhe Qualcomm-related patent exhaustion claim. The Court can help a plaintiff state its case unless it can be shown that there is no merit to the suit. That wasn't the case with Apple as Judge Posner had dismissed its claims for lack of proof, not for the absence of merit.

Judge Posner has made it tough for Apple to get an injunction, which is what the Cupertino based firm is shooting for. Remember, to get an injunction, it must be shown that monetary compensation is not enough to make the damaged party whole. To do that Apple has to balance on a high-wire. If Apple makes the damages conservative, it lessens the chance of the case being tossed out, but it also increases the chance that Apple could be satisfied by a monetary award reducing the chance of an injunction. On the other hand, if Apple says its damages are too high, it raises the chance if the Judge tossing the whole thing out. It's all a huge chess game and no matter where your allegiance lies, it should be interesting to see what happens.

source: FOSSPatents

FEATURED VIDEO

18 Comments

1. Droid_X_Doug

Posts: 5993; Member since: Dec 22, 2010

This is going to turn into such a clusterf*ck of a mess. Truly, the only ones who will win will be the attorneys.

10. sprockkets

Posts: 1612; Member since: Jan 16, 2012

What is dumb IIRC Posner is going to be the one doing the appeal. Good luck with that one!

15. Droid_X_Doug

Posts: 5993; Member since: Dec 22, 2010

Posner won't be hear the appeal, but once the appeal is decided (by the Court of Appeal), Posner will be ruling based on the decision that is handed down from the appeal. Posner can be expected to follow the letter of the appeal decision, so Apple should be careful what they ask for.

2. parkwaydr

Posts: 572; Member since: Sep 07, 2011

Can't they just gtf over it? I mean are these companies ran by children? All they are gonna do is make posner even more upset and annoyed.

3. Hammerfest

Posts: 384; Member since: May 12, 2012

This is a damned if you do and damned if you dont situation... Goes back to court, Apple loses big time, Im happy for 2 reasons, one Apple lost again, and two... well ok just one :P BUT if it goes back to court, and Motorola loses, then I will be a "mixed" bag of happy, because Motorola needs to learn to stop while they are ahead... and jumping back in and possibly getting crushed will be "just deserts" I really dont want to see happen...

14. jroc74

Posts: 6023; Member since: Dec 30, 2010

I agree 1000% with this. I am a big Motorola fan.....but they shoulda just stopped while they were ahead. In the other hand....Apple losing may make them calm down with all the lawsuits.

4. Mxyzptlk unregistered

It's all about business. You go to court to protect your property and assets. Can't have other companies infringing on patents or copying ideas.

5. wassup

Posts: 565; Member since: Jun 23, 2011

the UK doesn't think anyone copied apple because apple also copied from previous tablets as well. SHUT IT

8. serious9010

Posts: 254; Member since: Jul 20, 2012

@wassup. Do not register on such a site if you're 12.

16. plgladio

Posts: 314; Member since: Dec 05, 2011

Exactly, when a person steals from your house and says that it was his own, what will you do?

17. Mxyzptlk unregistered

12 people need to go back to economics 101.

6. FrostyDanny

Posts: 90; Member since: Jul 15, 2012

Why doesnt apple focus on their OWN products instead of trying to destroy the competition they are only hurting themselves and the consumers that buy their product!

7. loken

Posts: 462; Member since: May 09, 2012

Here we go again.....

9. roscuthiii

Posts: 2383; Member since: Jul 18, 2010

Motorola should just sue for the FRAND capped $6.5M in damages (if I'm remembering the number there right), plus all legal fees for even having to appear in court due to Apple's frivolous patent litigation. Take those winnings and throw one kick-ass victory party. The PR alone would probably make it worthwhile. Apple makes good products, but do they make the best? That's arguable. What nets them their profits then? Public perception. Never underestimate the power of good marketing.

11. TMach unregistered

I wish American judges would adopt the common sense approach of their British counterparts! Most of Apple's cases have been thrown out of British courts. Apple and all these companies, in view of such an approach, may re-appraise ther desire to rush to the law courts!

12. remixfa

Posts: 14605; Member since: Dec 19, 2008

I would rather see judges continually just throw these cases out then have lopsided judges like Koh who is so blatantly siding with apple on every decision its not funny. Winning here and there is one thing... having one judge so firmly in your pocket that no matter what you throw at the court, she sides with it is another.

13. Droid_X_Doug

Posts: 5993; Member since: Dec 22, 2010

Koh is the reason the Court of Appeal exists. Such a blatant example of judicial error hasn't been displayed in quite a while. Unfortunately, in Posner's ircumstance, there is a litigant (Apple) who won't take no for an answer. Moto has no choice but to pursue an appeal if Apple insists on continuing this train wreck. Meanwhile, the attorneys are billing at $750/hr.

18. InspectorGadget80 unregistered

I wish Ponser would DISMISS APPLE VS SAMSUNG case

Latest Stories

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. You can order presentation-ready copies for distribution to your colleagues, clients or customers at https://www.parsintl.com/phonearena or use the Reprints & Permissions tool that appears at the bottom of each web page. Visit https://www.parsintl.com/ for samples and additional information.