A trecut exact o saptamana de cand Apple a fost obligata sa scoata din vanzare anumite iDevice-uri iar astazi o instanta din Mannheim, Germania, a dat in sfarsit o decizie favorabila companiei Apple intr-un proces impotriva Motorola. In procesul de astazi compania Motorola a afirmat ca Apple ar fi incalcat un brevet de inventie in legatura cu tehonlogia 3G/UMTS insa instanta a considerat ca Motorola nu a adus suficiente argumente pentru a isi sustine cauza. Motorola sustine ca Apple ar fi incalcat un brevet pentru o tehnologie care permite generarea unui numar care prin anumite “mijloace” imbunatateste transmisiile wireless de date insa din pacate compania Motorola nu a prezentat suficiente dovezi ca Apple a incalcat brevetul fie printr-o implementare software sau una hardware a acestor “mijloace”.
Apple’s Mannheim jinx has been broken: this morning, Judge Andreas Voss of the Mannheim Regional Court announced that a Motorola Mobility lawsuit over a patent declared essential to the 3G/UMTS wireless telecommunications stsndard has been dismissed.The judge explained that the court does not hold Apple to infringe claim 9 of EP1053613 on a “method and system for generating a complex pseudonoise sequence for processing a code division multiple access [CDMA] signal”. In the court’s opinion, MMI failed to present conclusive evidence for its infringement contention. MMI argued that any implementation of 3G/UMTS must inevitably infringe this patent claim, as opposed to demonstrating that the accused Apple products actually practice the claimed invention.
Judecatorul care a prezidat sedinta sustine ca i-ar fi oferit o victorie companiei Motorola daca ar fi reusit sa isi dovedeasca afirmatiile insa in lipsa unor asemenea dovezi Apple iese castigatoare. Motorola nu a formulat deocamdata un apel impotriva acestei decizii insa exista sanse foarte mari ca acest lucru sa se intample in zilele urmatoare. Infrangerea de astazi este prea putin importanta pentru compania Motorola care inca are destule brevete cu care poate ataca Apple in instantele din Germania.
Since the asserted patent claim is centered around the “means” used to generate a number that optimizes wireless transmissions, the court would have wanted to see proof that Apple’s products contain such “means”. The judge clarified that the court would have deemed the patent claim infringed even if the “means” had been program code as opposed to a hardware implementation — but MMI didn’t show any kind of actual implementation (neither hardware nor software), and arguing merely on the basis of the specifications of the standard was insufficient to win.
