| 翻訳と辞書 |
| Motorola Mobility v. Apple Inc. ： ウィキペディア英語版 |
Motorola Mobility v. Apple Inc.
''Motorola Mobility v. Apple Inc.'' was one of a series of lawsuits between technology companies Motorola Mobility and Apple Inc.. In the year before Apple and Samsung began suing each other on most continents, and while Apple and High Tech Computer Corp. (HTC) were already embroiled in a patent fight, Motorola Mobility and Apple started a period of intense patent litigation. The Motorola-Apple patent imbroglio commenced with claims and cross-claims between the companies for patent infringement, and encompassed multiple venues in multiple countries as each party sought friendly forums for litigating its respective claims; the fight also included administrative law rulings as well as United States International Trade Commission (ITC) and European Commission involvement.〔''Motorola Mobility, Inc. v. Apple Inc.'', ''In the Matter of Certain Wireless Communication Devices, Portable Music and Data Processing Devices, Computers and Components Thereof'', ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-745, 2010-10-6; ''Motorola Mobility, Inc. v. Apple Inc. and NeXT Software, Inc.'', U.S. Dist. Ct., Dist. Del., 2010-10-8; ''Apple Inc. v. Motorola, Inc. and Motorola Mobility, Inc.'', U.S. Dist. Ct., W.Dist. Wisc., 2010-10-29; ''In the Matter of Certain Mobile Devices and Related Software'', ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-750, 2010-10-29; ''Apple v. Motorola'', 337-TA-750, 2012-3-16; ''Apple, Inc. and Apple Sales International v. Motorola Mobility, Inc.'', case 12CV0355 JLS BLM, U.S. Dist. Ct., S.D. Cal., 2012-2-10.〕 In April 2012, the controversy centered on whether a FRAND license to a components manufacturer carries over to an equipment manufacturer incorporating the component into equipment, an issue not addressed in the Supreme Court's default analysis using the exhaustion doctrine in ''Quanta v. LG Electronics''.〔Stern, Richard, (Standardization Skullduggery Never Ends: Apple v. Motorola ), IEEE Micro, ipv6.ppk.itb.ac.id, 2012-3/4, () mmi2012020003.3d 10/3/012 16:48 p. 3. Accessed 2012-4-13. Stern cites ''(Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc. )'', 128 S. Ct. 2109, 2008; accessed 2012-4-13. The ''Quanta'' case cited the 150-year-old doctrine of patent exhaustion which limits patent rights that survive the initial authorized sale of a patented item.〕 In June 2012, appellate judge Richard Posner dismissed the U.S. case with prejudice and the parties appealed the decision a month later.〔Mueller, Florian, (Judge Posner's dismissal of two-way Apple-Motorola lawsuit has many important implications ), Foss Patents, 2012-6-23. Accessed 2012-7-30.〕〔Levine, Dan (Judge who shelved Apple trial says patent system out of sync ), Reuters, reuters.com, 2012-7-5. Accessed 2012-7-25.〕〔Mueller, Florian, (Apple and Google subsidiary Motorola Mobility both appeal Judge Posner's ruling ), Foss Patents, 2012-7-21. Accessed 2012-7-30.〕
==Motorola Mobility's suits==
In early October 2010, Motorola Mobility filed a complaint with the ITC against Apple alleging patent infringement.〔''Motorola Mobility, Inc. v. Apple Inc.'', ''In the Matter of Certain Wireless Communication Devices, Portable Music and Data Processing Devices, Computers and Components Thereof'', ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-745, 2010-10-6.〕 The complaint allegations concerned six Motorola patents, and sought remedies of a court-ordered bar on U.S. imports of infringing products, and an injunction prohibiting Apple from importing, marketing and distributing infringing products. The ITC instituted its investigation a month later and Motorola subsequently dropped its patent claims with respect to two of the six patents at issue.〔(Form 10-K Annual Report ), Motorola Mobility, Inc., 2012-2-17, pp 37-38.〕
Motorola also filed two complaints for patent infringement against Apple in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Illinois Complaints), and another complaint for patent infringement against Apple in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Florida Complaint). Both complaints alleged Apple infringed 18 Motorola patents. In November 2010, Motorola voluntarily dismissed the Illinois Complaints, (asserted as counterclaims in the actions brought by Apple on October 29, 2010 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin). Later that November, Apple also filed counterclaims in the Southern District of Florida, alleging Motorola infringed six Apple patents in manufacturing and selling mobile devices, set-top boxes and digital video recorders.〔
Additionally, in October 2010, Motorola filed a complaint for a declaratory judgment against Apple and NeXT Software, Inc.〔''Motorola Mobility, Inc. v. Apple Inc. and NeXT Software, Inc.'', U.S. Dist. Ct., Dist. Del., 2010-10-8.〕 in the U.S. District Court in Delaware, seeking a ruling that Motorola did not infringe any claim of twelve patents owned by Apple and NeXT. In response, in early December 2010, Apple asserted these twelve patents against Motorola, Inc. and Motorola Mobility, Inc. in the Western District of Wisconsin and moved for a change of venue from Delaware to Wisconsin. Ultimately, both parties' patent assertions were subsequently transferred to the Northern District of Illinois.
抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』
■ウィキペディアで「Motorola Mobility v. Apple Inc.」の詳細全文を読む
スポンサード リンク
| 翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース |
Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.
|
|