In the war for patent supremacy, Google (NASDAQ:
) and Apple (NASDAQ:
) are rarely seen as victims. More often than not, Apple is
thought of as a patent predator, having attacked Samsung and
numerous other tech firms with massive lawsuits. The Mac maker is
now embroiled in a series of worldwide legal battles that
may never end
Cheryl Milone, a former patent attorney and founder and CEO of
Article One Partners
(a patent validation community), said that
Google's case against
) is "just another example of the stakes in the patent system
where companies are now using patents as a competitive tool to
control market share."
"War chest patents are attainable or already exist," said
Milone. "Google obtained its war chest by buying the Motorola
Multiple companies are "testing whether the industry
recognizes value or if the market share is protectable by
patents," she added. "We see it in the Apple/Samsung case. We see
it in the Microsoft and Motorola cases."
Milone also said that there is a discussion on the
standard-essential patents and whether a company that has been
able to establish a large essential standards portfolio should be
also be allowed to ban importation.
"Google took a very interesting step in agreeing to remove
standard-essential patents from the ITC (International Trade
Commission) action," said Milone, referring to the case with
Microsoft. "In doing so, the number of patents at issue was
reduced, making it more difficult to find a violation."
Milone said that the ALJ's (administrative law judge)
determination of no violation is not "surprising because the
number of patents were reduced, but also because the full
Commission's remand told the ALJ to look very carefully at their
decision in the S3G/Apple case."
In that case, S3 Graphics
for allegedly infringing on two of its patents. The ITC
dismissed the complaint
"So while we don't know what the ALJ's basis for finding no
violation is, the S3G case raises some very interesting
possibilities, most notably whether patents that have components
of what a computer has to contain at the time of importation are
found to be infringe," said Milone. "In the SG3 case, the
Commission found that the computers don't contain data, or in
that case, graphics stored in the format covered by the patent at
the time of importation.
"After importing the devices, the alleged infringer may
infringe some of the patent claims as a consequence of testing or
selling. But this may create a nexus. The ITC in the S3G case
[was] clearly focused on whether the imported product at the time
of importation infringes. That's a very interesting development.
The Commission, in remanding the Google/Motorola v. Microsoft
case, instructed the ALJ to focus on the findings in the S3G
Louis Bedigian is the Senior Tech Analyst and Features Writer
of Benzinga. You can reach him at 248-636-1322 or
email@example.com. Follow him
(c) 2013 Benzinga.com. Benzinga does not provide investment
advice. All rights reserved.
Profit with More New & Research
. Gain access to a streaming platform with all the information
you need to invest better today.
Click here to start your 14 Day Trial of Benzinga