14 DAY TRIAL // Motorola has officially acknowledged a win against Cupertino, California-based Apple Inc. after a German court ruled that Apple’s European sales office is infringing one of Motorola Mobility's core cellular communications patents.
Motorola Mobility Holdings, Inc. has issued an official report announcing that the court in Manheim, Germany has ruled that Apple's European sales company (Apple Sales International), is infringing one of the former’s patents related to data packet transfer technology (GPRS).
The infringing devices cited in the suit are the iPhone and the 3G-capable iPad tablets.
According to the report, the German court granted Motorola Mobility's requests for an injunction and damages.
Commenting on their initial win, Scott Offer, senior vice president and general counsel of Motorola Mobility, remarked: "We are pleased with the court's ruling. Today's decision validates Motorola Mobility's efforts to enforce its patents against Apple's infringement.
Offer added: "Motorola Mobility has worked hard over the years to build an industry-leading intellectual property portfolio that is respected by the telecommunications industry, and we are proud to leverage this portfolio to create differentiated innovations that enhance the user experience.”
“We will continue to take all necessary steps to protect our intellectual property, as the Company's patent portfolio and licensing agreements with companies both in the U.S. and around the world are critical to our business. We have been negotiating with Apple and offering them reasonable licensing terms and conditions since 2007, and will continue our efforts to resolve our global patent dispute as soon as practicable," Motorola’s SVP concluded.
The patent at heart is, in fact, one that Motorola is required to license under FRAND (fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory) terms, according to Foss Patents’ Florian Mueller.
Apple has argued that said patent is essential to the GPRS standard, and it has been since deemed so. However, Apple could not win because it did not meet the requirements for making a binding offer to license the patent.