Federal Judge Richard Posner Thursday canceled the patent trial between Apple Inc. and Motorola Mobility, subsidiary of Google Inc., scheduled on June 11 in Illinois, because of lack of evidence from both sides.
Posner wrote a “tentative” order in Chicago ruling that both companies’ cases should be dismissed “with prejudice”. That means the cases cannot be brought up again until 2014 at the earliest.
Kelly J. Kubasta, a partner with Klemchuk Kubasta, supported Posner’s decision.
"When you go to court to allege patent infringement, there are two remedies you can request – monetary damages and/or injunctive relief. But both are required to prove some sort of injury,” explained Kubasta at the E-Commerce Times.
“Posner indicated that he didn't believe either side had been financially injured," Kubasta added.
The argument between Motorola and Apple could date back to October 2010, when Motorola first sued Apple. And, of course, Apple sued back just three weeks later. Since then, the legal battles between mobile companies seemed never really stopped.
By June, Apple was left with declares for two patents’ infringement, and the judge ruled that Apple’s evidence still didn’t create “a genuine issue of material fact enabling it to withstand Motorola's motion for summary judgment.”
Patent lawsuit appears to be a dominate strategy among the tech giants in the United States. When a lawsuit starts by a rival, and the respondent didn’t sue back, the plaintiff would get benefit from this suit.
Most recently, Apple and Samsung’s patent fight is turning out to be intense as the new Samsung’s Galaxy S3’s coming. Both Google and Apple have patent issue with HTC as well. Adding Apple and Motorola’s long term patent war here, it seems like the counselor teams in those tech giants are busier than their research teams.
However, the suit and counter-suit usually do not give any benefit to either parties – except perhaps the lawyers. The counselor teams are said to make judge frustrated with their “ridiculous arguments”.
"[I]njunctive relief would impose costs disproportionate to the harm to the patentee and the benefit of the alleged infringement to the allowed infringer and would be contrary to the public interest, I cannot find a basis for an aware of injunctive relief," Posner said.