Sia Apple che Google hanno presentato un ricorso alla decisione del giudice Richard Posner di respingere un’ingiunzione di Apple contro Motorola. La decisione è stata prese lo scorso mese di giugno e si riferisce ad un contenzioso iniziato nel 2010.
Il giudice Richard Posner del tribunale federale degli Stati Uniti nel mese di giungo ha decretato che la causa di Apple contro Motorola viene respinta nella sua interezza. Ricordiamo che all’interno di questa disputa Apple accusava Motorola di violare quattro dei suoi brevetti, mentre quest’ultima accusava l’azienda californiana di violarne uno a sua volta. Anche l’accusa di Motorola venne respinta.
Per questo motivo, ora sia Apple che Google (rappresentante di Motorola Mobility) hanno fatto ricorso a tale decisione. Per i più curiosi, questi sono i procedimenti a cui si appella Apple (ripresi direttamente dalle carte ufficiali):
1. those portions of the Court’s summary judgment and claim construction orders that were adverse to Apple (including without limitation Dkt. Nos. 176, 526, 556, 671, 691, 706, 724, 751, 767, 826 and 1005);
2. those portions of the Court’s evidentiary orders (including without limitation Dkt. Nos. 960 and 980) that were adverse to Apple in excluding certain evidence Apple intended to offer;
3. those portions of the Court’s May 22, 2012 Opinion and Order adverse to Apple in which the Court struck Apple’s damages expert and underlying damages theories (Dkt. No. 956); and
4. those portions of the Court’s June 22, 2012 Opinion and Order adverse to Apple granting summary judgment against Apple as it relates to (1) Apple’s damages theories and (2) Apple’s entitlement to an injunction with respect to the Apple patents (Dkt. No. 1038).
Questi, invece, gli appelli di Google/Motorola:
1. those portions of the Court’s summary judgment and claim construction orders that were adverse to Motorola (including without limitation Order of May 20, 2012 not appearing on the docket and Dkt. Nos. 176, 526, 556, 671, 691, 751, 747, 767, 826, 1005, 1038);
2. those portions of the Court’s evidentiary orders (including without limitation Dkt. Nos. 771, 747, 803, 830, 900, 958, 956, 980) that were adverse to Motorola in excluding certain evidence Motorola intended to offer or in precluding Motorola from supplementing its expert reports or record evidence;
4. the Court’s order denying Motorola’s motion to dismiss or transfer this case (including without limitation Dkt. Nos. 66);
5. those portions of the Court’s May 22, 2012 Opinion and Order adverse to Motorola in which the Court struck Motorola’s damages expert and underlying damages theories (Dkt. No. 956); and
6. those portions of the Court’s June 22, 2012 Opinion and Order adverse to Motorola granting summary judgment against Motorola as it relates to (1) Motorola’s damages theories and (2) Motorola’s entitlement to an injunction with respect to the Motorola patents (Dkt. No. 1038).
Entrambe le aziende vogliono quindi che il giudice si pronunci definitivamente su tali questioni.
