x PhoneArena is hiring! Reviewer in the USA
  • Hidden picShow menu
  • Home
  • News
  • ITC finds that the Apple iPhone does not infringe on Motorola patent

ITC finds that the Apple iPhone does not infringe on Motorola patent

Posted: , by Alan F.

Tags :

ITC finds that the Apple iPhone does not infringe on Motorola patent
"Having examined the record of this investigation, ... the commission has determined to terminate the investigation with a finding of no violation ... with respect to the '862 patent."-ITC
The ITC ruled in favor of Apple on Monday, handing Motorola another stinging legal defeat. That makes two losses for the Google subsidiary since Friday when a German court denied Motorola Germany an injunction against Microsoft over a dubious push notification patent.

On Monday, the ITC ruled that Apple did not infringe on a patent held by Motorola for sensors that prevent a phone from dialing a phone number by mistake when a touchscreen is pushed up against a user's face. With the decision, the ITC has completed its investigation and has reached a final conclusion that there was no violation in reference to the '862 patent.

Back in February, the 6 member ITC commission said it would review the decision made by Administrative Law Judge Thomas Pender that Motorola's proximity sensor covered by the '862 patent was not different than a previous invention. But Motorola said that prior art covered a device with buttons, not a touchscreen which is what Motorola's patent covers. Now that the ITC has ruled in favor of Apple, the Google subsidiary can appeal this decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. That happens to be where a previous ITC decision lies, one that saw the agency toss out three other Motorola patents.

source: FOSSPatents via PCMag

  • Options

posted on 22 Apr 2013, 22:02 9

1. Whateverman (Posts: 3284; Member since: 17 May 2009)

Yet the "rectangle with rounded corners" patent lives on. Who needs to think up new technologies when you can just patent shapes?

posted on 22 Apr 2013, 23:36 4

4. Mxyzptlk (unregistered)

A shape that's very significant and brought smartphone to the masses.

posted on 23 Apr 2013, 00:12 6

7. Whateverman (Posts: 3284; Member since: 17 May 2009)

The rectangle has been around for centuries, there is nothing significant about it. Palm and RIM brought smartphones to the masses long before there was an iPhone or Android devices.

posted on 23 Apr 2013, 07:06 2

18. Mxyzptlk (unregistered)

And what did they accomplish? RIM has been on life support for years while Palm died and the remnants are being shifted around to LG now.

posted on 23 Apr 2013, 10:40 1

39. Whateverman (Posts: 3284; Member since: 17 May 2009)

Steve jobs died too, does that mean he accomplished nothing? These two companies pioneered the smartphone, but your rather unique appreciation of Apple will not allow you to acknowledge the work of any othe company before Apple, so this conversation is pointless. Have a great day.

posted on 23 Apr 2013, 00:34 2

10. weinerslav (Posts: 126; Member since: 31 Jul 2012)

you're clearly not aware about what a smartphone is and for how long they are among us...

posted on 23 Apr 2013, 01:33

14. anywherehome (Posts: 971; Member since: 13 Dec 2011)

without internet you would probably commit a suicide....so poor life's meanings you DO have :)

posted on 23 Apr 2013, 01:45

15. AnTuTu (Posts: 1580; Member since: 14 Oct 2012)

You are back ohh noooooooooooo

posted on 23 Apr 2013, 01:56 7

16. Sniggly (Posts: 7305; Member since: 05 Dec 2009)

While it can't be argued that the rectangle is the most common form factor among smartphones and tablets, Apple didn't come up with it by a long shot.

And the implication that the iPhone brought the smartphone to the masses is a fabrication. The iPhone was 600 bucks ON CONTRACT when it came out, and continued to be expensive for a long time.

GOOGLE was the company that brought the smartphone to the masses, because Android being given out for free allowed smartphone manufacturers to make super cheap phones with Android on them. To this day you can buy a half decent Android phone on a prepaid carrier for 100 bucks, and a good one at 2 to 3 hundred. The cheapest iPhone you can possibly buy off contract is around 350, and that was after a massive price cut because-shocker-no one was buying the iPhone on prepaid.

On contract, the only free iPhone is a 3 year old design which is starting to really show its age. Next level up is the 100 dollar iPhone 4S, which is almost 2 years old. After that you finally get the iPhone 5.

In the meantime, free on contract will get you Android phones with processing power, memory capacity, Internet speeds, and camera quality on par with the iPhone (depending on retailer). 100 bucks will nab you the most popular Android phone by far, the Galaxy S3, which not only matches the iPhone feature for feature but also packs extras not found on the iPhone and some features which make it easier to use (not to mention a plethora of accessories).

200 bucks will, depending on your carrier, buy you a Galaxy Note 2, which is the S3 on steroids, HTC One, which has twice the memory of a similarly priced iPhone, or a Razr Maxx HD, which is far more durable, with better battery life and twice the memory.

In other words, Android's strength is in its feature set and cost for comparable tech. And the Android manufacturers do all this WHILE ALSO putting more money into each phone than Apple does.

So no, Apple didn't bring the iPhone to the masses. Until Android started eclipsing the iPhone in sales worldwide, the iPhone was the exclusive toy for rich people to display as a status symbol. Android made the smartphone into something that anyone could get at an affordable price.

posted on 23 Apr 2013, 02:15

17. avin007 (Posts: 139; Member since: 28 Feb 2013)

wow u wrote an article almost !!?

posted on 23 Apr 2013, 07:07 2

19. Mxyzptlk (unregistered)

Don't see why an essay was required.

posted on 23 Apr 2013, 07:11 3

20. Mxyzptlk (unregistered)

Wrong. Apple's design is what made the iPhone iconic. Why else did we have many OEMs try and copy it before with the media and some OEMs calling their devices the iPhone killer?

iPhone was responsible for bringing smartphone to the masses. Yes it was expensive when it was first released but so was other smartphones at the time since the smartphone had not taken off at the time.

Those iPhones you listed - 3GS, 4, and 4S are still relevant and performs better than many Android devices of comparable age.

3GS has seen more support in years than most current Android phones, especially ones from Motorola who chose not to update many of their phones like the Atrix line.

So yes, Apple did bring the smartphone to the masses.

posted on 23 Apr 2013, 08:55

26. Sniggly (Posts: 7305; Member since: 05 Dec 2009)

Except that excluding Samsung, other OEMs DIDN'T do much of anything to actually copy the iPhone's design. Phones like the Droid, Droid X, Evo, etc all differentiated wildly from the iPhone's design. Even Samsung now differentiates a lot. The "iPhone killer" moniker was applied to anything that the seller hoped would match or beat the iPhone's sales numbers. It's like how when the Ford GT came out, everyone called it the Ferrari killer despite it looking absolutely nothing like a Ferrari.

The 3GS is not relevant at all anymore. The camera is awful and the latest versions of iOS have slowed it to a crawl.

On the other hand, the Droid X I gave to my dad still works fine with zero complaints.

The only reason Android devices of old don't perform on par is because they had jack for internal memory and RAM. I see old Android phones which were treated properly perform just fine just as often as I see them run like crap, just like iPhones.

The 4 is better than the 3GS so far, but it's already starting to slow down too. That's Apple's idea of support, after all: strip great features from iOS updates to older devices, yet still forget to optimize those updates and load the phones down with software they can't handle.

And I won't even dignify the jab at Motorola software support with an answer.

Apple did not bring the smartphone to the masses at all. Sure, it was the phone that everyone wanted for a while, and the iPhone 3G finally broke the Motorola Razr's sales figures, but it by no means made the smartphone an everyday item. At the time that the iPhone was released, Windows Mobile, Palm and Blackberry all had budget devices priced well below the iPhone-just find Ballmer's teeth grating reaction to the iPhone when it first came out for proof of this.

What Android did which was so important was marry the feature set and ease of use of the iPhone to a platform that could be found at all price points. There wasn't even a free iPhone until 2011. Prior to that, Apple simply discontinued its two generations removed phone and dropped the price of the previous generation to a minimum of 100 dollars on contract.

Android brought viable, more recent phones to the table at a lower cost. I've already illustrated the quality you get with Android even for free. I'm not interested in repeating myself.

The bottom line: the iPhone made the smartphone into something everyone wanted. Android made the smartphone into something everyone could HAVE.

posted on 23 Apr 2013, 10:06

34. InspectorGadget80 (unregistered)

No on HERE likes too patent a RECTANGLE SHAPE phone

posted on 23 Apr 2013, 00:22 3

8. anywherehome (Posts: 971; Member since: 13 Dec 2011)

Apple must have bribed FTC....there is no any another explanation....

posted on 23 Apr 2013, 10:05

33. InspectorGadget80 (unregistered)

of course they get free money/apple products by them. they wouldn't let anyone else win against them in court

posted on 22 Apr 2013, 22:11 4

2. nobelset (Posts: 270; Member since: 17 Oct 2012)

Of course they don't infringe on anything, they're apple!

posted on 22 Apr 2013, 23:36 2

5. Mxyzptlk (unregistered)

Do not be disappointed at fair justice.

posted on 23 Apr 2013, 10:05

31. InspectorGadget80 (unregistered)

i dont call it justice i call it INJUSTICE against the ITC/APPLE

posted on 23 Apr 2013, 10:26

36. networkdood (Posts: 6330; Member since: 31 Mar 2010)

You mean an injustice against Motorola as 'an injustice' is something that not fair, wrong, etc.

posted on 23 Apr 2013, 23:40

41. anywherehome (Posts: 971; Member since: 13 Dec 2011)

injustice can be both: for an advantage vs. against someone to harm

posted on 22 Apr 2013, 23:35 3

3. Mxyzptlk (unregistered)

Why does Motorola continues to try and abuse FRAND patents like this?

posted on 22 Apr 2013, 23:52 7

6. Sniggly (Posts: 7305; Member since: 05 Dec 2009)

Easy answer, O intelligent (*snort*) one. This isn't a FRAND patent.


posted on 23 Apr 2013, 00:28 1

9. Mxyzptlk (unregistered)

Whether it's FRAND or not, it still got struck down as invalid.

posted on 23 Apr 2013, 00:36 4

11. weinerslav (Posts: 126; Member since: 31 Jul 2012)

so now doesn't matter if it is FRAND or not...

posted on 23 Apr 2013, 00:38 2

12. Sniggly (Posts: 7305; Member since: 05 Dec 2009)

Yeah, that happens a lot. The patent system is a mess. Patents that should never have been given out get approved, patents get invalidated, infringement is declared where there is none...

Sadly, while the momentum of lawlsuits between the Android manufacturers Apple is slowing down, Microsoft is stepping up to the plate with its own round of bulls**t litigation against everyone.

I'd prefer it if the manufacturers all just f**king dropped this bulls**t. People don't buy Galaxy phones because the screen bounces at the bottom like an iPhone does, or because Apple has a notification center like Android. My years in mobile have taught me that except for some bleating idiots, one or two singular feature doesn't get a phone to sell anymore. The original iPhone impressed because it combined a lot of good elements to provide a good experience. Same with Android and many of the best phones it's come out with. I hardly see anyone mention Siri as a reason to get an iPhone anymore, and really, that stupidity stopped about three weeks after the 4S launched.

Therefore, the lawsuits have a very transparent motivation behind them: for Apple at first, it was an attempt to artificially kill what used to be an underdog but increasingly popular competitor. For the Android manufacturers it's mainly been an act of defense in order to get Apple to back down. For Microsoft and its partners it's desperation to do something, ANYTHING to slow momentum of competitors so they can ease back into the market.

posted on 23 Apr 2013, 07:16 2

22. Mxyzptlk (unregistered)

So in other words you're angry because Motorola's claim that Apple infringed on a patent was proven invalid? It's like I said before, you can't go around abusing patents that are standard like Samsung tried to do with their LTE patents or patents that fall under fair and reasonable use.

posted on 23 Apr 2013, 08:43 1

24. Sniggly (Posts: 7305; Member since: 05 Dec 2009)

But this WASN'T one of those patents, Mxy. And really, Apple did the same with a lot of their patents first. I mean, christ almighty, suing someone over a tablet being a rectangle with rounded corners?

posted on 23 Apr 2013, 08:55

25. Mxyzptlk (unregistered)

Apple only did what they did to protect their design. You would have done the same.

posted on 23 Apr 2013, 10:05

32. Sniggly (Posts: 7305; Member since: 05 Dec 2009)

No I wouldn't have.

Want to comment? Please login or register.

Latest stories