Judge orders Motorola to provide Apple details of Google's acquisition plans, Android development
In a filing on March 2, Apple requested to obtain the information stating that "the Android/Motorola acquisition discovery is highly relevant to Appleâs claims and defenses" in its ongoing patent suit against Motorola, which is also countersuing Apple.
According to a report by Bloomberg, Judge Richard A. Posner granted Apple's request, ordering that "Motorola shall be expected to obtain full and immediate compliance by Google with Appleâs liability discovery demands."
The judge also scheduled two trials before separate juries on June 11, the first covering six patent infringements brought by Apple and the second dealing with three patents brought by Motorola.
Motorola had opposed giving Apple more information about Google's acquisition plans, arguing that Google wasn't a party to the lawsuit. "Googleâs employees and documents are not within the âpossession, custody, or controlâ of Motorola, and Motorola cannot force Google to produce documents or witnesses over Googleâs objections," the company's attorneys argued.
Google enters the fray
Apple's patent claims have so far targeted Android licensees (including Samsung, HTC and Motorola) rather than Google itself. However, most of the patents Apple has argued against Android licenses apply to the Google's Android software.
In its case against HTC, Apple argued to the ITC last August that the head of Android development at Google, Andy Rubin, "began his career at Apple in the early 1990s and worked as a low-level engineer specifically reporting to the inventors of the '263 [realtime API] patent at the exact time their invention was being conceived and developed."
Apple's brief added that "it is thus no wonder that the infringing Android platform used the claimed subsystem approach of the '263 patent that allows for flexibility of design and enables the platform to be 'highly customizable and expandable' as HTC touts." Apple is also claiming infringement of the '263 patent against Motorola.
At the end of January, Judge Posner interpreted the '263 patent in a manner favorable to Apple's case, causing Florian Mueller of FOSS Patents to note that , "a jury is very likely to find Android to infringe the patent based on that construction but much less likely to deem the patent invalid."
89 Comments
I get this feeling Andy Rubin sees himself as a Steve Jobs.
Motorola had opposed giving Apple more information about Google's acquisition plans, arguing that Google wasn't a party to the lawsuit. "Google?s employees and documents are not within the ?possession, custody, or control? of Motorola, and Motorola cannot force Google to produce documents or witnesses over Google?s objections," the company's attorneys argued.
I can't say that I am very well versed on this case (or the legal points in question) but this sounded like a reasonable argument from Motorola.
It seems impressive that Apple's lawyers are going to get a peek at the Google side of things from this.
This is why I am always very careful before I spend over $12 billion on anything...
I wonder how long it will be before Apple has enough trial tested patents to go after Google directly.
I'm no lawyer, but I would guess that any patent which wins for Apple in court, but remains implemented in Android after the trial concludes would constitute willful infringement for triple damages should Apple go after Google directly.
Of course, the opposite is true as well, but I haven't heard of any Android patents being involved in any of the suits against Apple.
I'm gonna need a lot more popcorn.
Andy Ruben works for Apple then heads up Android development for Google and incorporates Apple IP.
Eric Schmidt head up JAVA development at SUN and then SUN/JAVA IP ends up in Android.
Eric Schmidt is on Apple board of directors while developing iOS and suddenly Android goes from being a blackberry clone to a full feature touch screen phone.
A pattern? Hrm.
"Google?s employees and documents are not within the ?possession, custody, or control? of Motorola, and Motorola cannot force Google to produce documents or witnesses over Google?s objections," the company's attorneys argued...
This is also known as the "Proview Defense" ie. the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing.