Search for: "APPLE V ITC"
Results 241 - 260
of 585
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
24 Apr 2013, 12:10 am
Zero U.S. import bans (on Monday the ITC just tossed the sole remaining patent-in-suit in Motorola's case against Apple, and Google faces a high hurdle in its attempt to salvage its case against Microsoft after an Administrative Law Judge recommended its dismissal a month ago). [read post]
18 Mar 2022, 2:02 am
Qualcomm and Apple v. [read post]
1 Apr 2013, 9:13 pm
The "final" rejection also relates to the claim-in-suit in the ongoing Apple v. [read post]
3 May 2013, 1:58 am
Less noise, more signal.These are the three most important appeals going on at this stage (in no particular order):Oracle's copyrightability-centric Android/Java appealGoogle's appeal of the FRAND part of Judge Posner's rulingApple's appeal of Judge Koh's denial of a permanent injunction against SamsungThe third one is the one I will focus on for the remainder of this post.The key issues of transcendental relevance in the Apple v. [read post]
3 Oct 2013, 9:43 am
But today's ruling is not yet a mandate, and by the time the Federal Circuit issues a mandate, the ITC will presumably be at work again.Recently, Apple also succeeded with its appeal of an ITC ruling on a complaint against Motorola.If you'd like to be updated on the smartphone patent disputes and other intellectual property matters I cover, please subscribe to my RSS feed (in the right-hand column) and/or follow me on Twitter @FOSSpatents and Google+.Follow @FOSSpatents … [read post]
29 Jan 2014, 2:43 pm
The court didn't conclude that they're entirely innocent, but didn't identify a whole lot of guilt either.If you're interested in more detail, here's the 19-page order: 14-01-29 Apple v. [read post]
12 Sep 2012, 11:56 am
But the target date for the actual decision is always four months after the decision (in this case, that's already January), and even if the final decision was an import ban, there would be a 60-day Presidential Review period before it takes effect.In Germany, there are four Samsung v. [read post]
17 May 2017, 10:36 am
One doesn't even need to be wealthy to withhold payments in whole or in part (though it obviously makes it easier to deal with litigation costs and risks).In Apple v. [read post]
19 Dec 2018, 2:53 am
When patent holders bring compülaints against Apple in Germany, they typically sue Apple Inc. [read post]
10 Jan 2013, 9:50 am
Additional Nokia v. [read post]
5 Feb 2019, 2:03 pm
At the recent FTC v. [read post]
26 Sep 2012, 7:00 am
In the Apple v. [read post]
5 Nov 2012, 11:05 pm
Yesterday's dismissal of an Apple v. [read post]
8 Nov 2011, 5:47 am
Apple v. [read post]
9 Jun 2012, 9:00 am
ITC judge to use "Cheech and Chong" test in Apple v. [read post]
17 Oct 2013, 6:47 am
Apple explained to a court that even if those challenges succeeded, the processes would take until at least mid-2017 or longer if Apple exhausts (as it will do in the case of strategic patents) all appeals -- and the only way these processes can be concluded ahead of time is if Apple wins and a patent is confirmed.Last year, not long after the first Apple v. [read post]
15 Jul 2013, 10:10 pm
Motorola calls it reverse hold up, which is what Apple was just found guilty of against Samsung at the ITC for essentially the same type of moves:Microsoft's conduct suggests that it was engaged in "reverse hold-up. [read post]
29 Dec 2009, 3:01 pm
On December 29, 2009, Nokia Corporation of Finland and Nokia Inc. of White Plains, New York (collectively, “Nokia”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337. [read post]
23 Oct 2012, 1:54 am
Lemay and Imran ChaudhriA few days after the Apple v. [read post]
Motorola v. ITC: Possibility that Prior Art Encompasses Claimed Feature Not Enough to Show Inherency
18 Dec 2013, 2:18 am
ITC, No. 2012-1535 (Fed. [read post]
