蘋果訴摩托羅拉侵權案重新開審
|
????我們上次拜訪伊利諾斯州北部地區法院時，法官理查德?波斯納發布了一條指令，“有偏見的”駁回蘋果（Apple）訴摩托羅拉（Motorola）專利侵權案，此指令被廣泛報道為雙方的最終結局。 ????不過該指令是試驗性的，附有警告稱法官可能會在書寫自己意見的過程中改變主意。而他確實這樣做了。 ????FOSS Patents的弗洛里安?穆勒發現了該文件，并將其全文公布如下： ????“我已決定同意蘋果在6月7日聽證會上提出的請求，即舉行‘一次聽證會，雙方當事人可以就是否滿足易趣條款（Ebay factors）進行辯論，并進行一次傳統的禁令聽證會’。聽證會將于6月20日（下周三）上午10點在德克森聯邦法院進行。雙方均可就自己的一項或多項專利是否被對方侵權一事展開辯論，從而向法院申請禁制令。如果希望提交訴書，請在6月18日（下周一）下班時間之前完成。接下來，對于以合理專利稅替代按衡平法判決提出的禁令這一可能性，雙方都應該做好準備面對。對于禁令救濟或其它衡平法救濟，他們應該只從目前的記錄中尋找證據（提交補充材料的時間已經太晚）。如果摩托羅拉希望為禁制令辯護，它必須在禁令分析階段解決其面臨的FRAND（公平合理和非歧視）指控。” ????穆勒表示，“所謂‘易趣條款’是法院在宣判禁令時要考慮的四條分析法則。其命名來源于聯邦最高法院于2006年對易趣與MercExchange一案做出的判決。” ????他補充道，摩托羅拉將很難說服任何一位法官。該公司提交的作為行業標準的一部分的專利，在所謂的公平、合理且非歧視（FRAND）的許可條款下，很難這樣的案件中對蘋果造成不利。他的分析見此。 ????這令人疑惑不解：谷歌（Google）花了125億美元來收購摩托羅拉移動（Motorola Mobility），它能從這筆交易中得到什么？ ????譯者：項航 |
????When last we visited Judge Richard Posner's court in the Northern District of Illinois he had issued an order dismissing "with prejudice" the Apple v. Motorola patent infringement case -- an order that was widely reported as the end of the line for both parties. ????But the order was tentative, and it came with the caveat that the judge might, in the process of writing his opinion, change his mind. ????And that's exactly what he did. ????In a new order filed Wednesday and entered into the record Thursday, Judge Posner scheduled a hearing, as requested by Apple (AAPL), where both parties would have one last chance to make the case for an injunction banning the sale of the other side's product. ????FOSS Patents' Florian Mueller spotted the filing and posted the text in full: ????"I have decided to grant Apple's request, made at the June 7 hearing, for 'a hearing at which the parties could attempt to satisfy the eBay factors and do a traditional injunction hearing.' The hearing will be held next Wednesday, June 20, in a courtroom, to be announced, of the Dirksen Federal Courthouse, at 10 a.m. Each party may argue that it would be entitled to injunctive relief as to its patent or patents were the other party found to have infringed. The parties may submit briefs, if they wish, no later than the close of business on Monday, June 18. The parties should be prepared to address the possibility of substitution for an injunction of an equitable decree for a reasonable royalty going forward. They should indicate any evidence in the existing record (for it is too late to supplement the record) bearing on the question of injunctive or other equitable relief. And if Motorola means to argue for injunctive relief it should be prepared to address the bearing of FRAND on the injunction analysis." ????According to Mueller, "eBay factors" are the four factors that courts consider in their analysis of whether or not to grant an injunction, so-named because of the Supreme Court's 2006 ruling on eBay v. MercExchange. ????He adds that Motorola will have a tough time persuading any judge that patents that the company submitted to be part of an industry standard under so-called fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) licensing terms can be used against Apple in a case like this. See his analysis here. ????It makes you wonder what Google (GOOG) got for the $12.5 billion it spent to acquire Motorola Mobility. ????For more on Judge Posner -- one of the most colorful, influential and apparently unpredictable jurists in the U.S. Court of Appeals -- see here. |
最新文章