What we find the most interesting about this event is the logic and clear thinking that was used. In many of the patent cases we have seen the judges (and juries if it comes to that) do not even weigh the evidence in the case of review the claims. In what appears to be an effort to “get things done” many judges rubber stamp requests, injunctions, and more without ever checking to see if the claims are true.

For example, we saw a ban request by Apple go through on some Samsung products because of supposed copying, yet there was no proof that the alleged copying would have been harmful to Apple. It was very harmful to Samsung. In the end it took a panel of judges to remove the injunction using just that logic. If someone is looking for an Apple product it is not likely they will pick up a Samsung. The two are not even sold in the same places in most stores due to Apple’s own restrictions on the way their products are to be displayed.

We also saw Samsung attempt to get a ban for an Essential technology on Apple. It is ludicrous to ask for a ban on that type of tech. Instead Samsung should have asked for royalties (fair ones nothing ridiculous).

In many of these patent cases where an injunction or ban is requested the mission is clear, stop the competition. Samsung, Apple, Motorola, Google, Microsoft are not looking to protect IP; they are looking to clean out the competition and not much more.

In this case Posner made the decision to hear out both sides, but when neither was interested in playing nicely he dismissed the whole thing. Apple even tried the option of forcing Motorola to remove the offending technology within 90 days, but again Posner saw through that.

“Because of the potential costs to Motorola and the federal judiciary I could not responsibly order injunctive relief in favor of Apple”

My favorite line is one that shows how ALL patent suits should be looked at in the future.

“To suggest that it has suffered loss of market share, brand recognition, or customer goodwill as a result of Motorola’s alleged infringement of the patent claims still in play in this case is wild conjecture,”

We could not agree more, to ask for an outright ban on a product over an effect that is easily replicated with different code is ludicrous and should never be allowed. It is also almost unbelievable that companies are still trying to claim that a single patent causes grievous harm to them to the extent that a full ban on a product or product line is acceptable. Now let’s hope that other judges will pick up on this and start treating these cases in the way they should be.

Discuss this in our Forum