Apple v. Motorola


  • Case Number: Inv. No. 337-TA-750

“Certain Mobile Devices and Related Software”

Next Event: Investigation complete. Apple has appealed the ruling to the Court of Appeals forthe Federal Circuit, Docket No. 12-1338, where the case is pending. Oral arguments have beenscheduled for March 7, 2013.

Summary: Apple asserted that certain Motorola smartphones infringe on three of its patents. Apple requested a ban on the importation and sale of these infringing products. The International Trade Commission affirmed the Initial Determination of ALJ Essex and found no 337 violation because the patents in question were invalid for anticipation or obviousness, or that the products in question do not literally infringe upon the patents asserted. Apple has appealed the ruling to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Timeline of Important Events:

  • October 29, 2010 – Apple files its initial complaint alleging Motorola infringement of three Apple patents. (Document #436704). The patents in question contain two patents that Apple asserted against Samsung in the Northern District of California in 5:11-cv-01846 (Apple-Samsung I).
  • November 23, 2010 – The ITC opens an investigation and assigns Administrative Law Judge Theodore R. Essex.
  • December 15, 2010 – Motorola answers Apple’s complaint, denying the alleged infringement. (Document #440266).
  • January 20, 2011 – ALJ Essex sets the procedural schedule, scheduling hearings between September 26 and October 5, 2011, and setting a target date of March 30, 2012.
  • July 28, 2011 – Apple moves for summary determination that it has satisfied the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement. The motion is granted by ALJ Essex on September 15, 2011. (Document #459344) (confidential).
  • September 26, 2011 – Hearings begin.
  • January 13, 2012 – The ALJ issues notice of an Initial Determination that there has been no 337 violation. (Document #468636). Full Initial Determination released January 25, 2012. (Document #469664). The Initial Determination found that patent 5,379,430 is invalid for anticipation; 7,663,607 is invalid for obviousness; and that the products in question do not literally infringe patent 7,812,828.
  • February 9, 2012 – Apple files a petition for review of the Initial Determination by the full Commission. (Document #471525).
  • March 16, 2012 – The Commission issues notice that it has reviewed and affirmed the Initial Determination of ALJ Essex that no violation has occurred. Public commission Opinion released April 10, 2012. (Document #477205). The Commission affirmed that patent 7,663,607 is invalid for anticipation and obviousness.
  • April 19, 2012 – Apple filed Notice of Appeal with the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
  • August 27, 2012 – Apple files Corrected Opening Brief of Appellant Apple (Filing #39). Apple appeals the findings of obviousness, anticipation, and the ALJ’s construction of patent 7,812,828.
  • October 15, 2012 – Motorola files brief as intervenor (Filing #43).
  • November 15, 2012 – Apple files Reply Brief (Filing #54). Apple contends that the ITC erred in holding that Apple’s patent covering its transparent full image multi-touch sensor is invalid for obviousness. Apple also challenges the prior art upon which the ITC rested much of its decision.
  • January 23, 2013 – Court announces that oral argument will occur on March 7, 2013.