Report: Apple interested in arbitration in Motorola Mobility case

Report: Apple interested in arbitration in Motorola Mobility case

Summary: Apple is reportedly interested in arbitration in resolving its disputes with Motorola Mobility, which could have worldwide repercussions.

SHARE:
10

Things could work out a bit more smoothly in Apple's legal battle with Motorola Mobility, based on some new court filings.

Apple filed a reply on Friday regarding the dismissal of its FRAND case against the mobile device manufacturer at the U.S. District Court in the Western District of Wisconsin.

The key point of Apple's latest filing is that the court should not dismiss Apple's claims (or the case in general) or else arbitration would be off the table completely.

To recall, Judge Barbara B. Crabb canceled the trial on November 5 -- the day it was supposed to start -- following disputes over how the case should move forward. Crabb also dismissed the case "with prejudice" -- something Apple is firmly against.

At that point, it seemed the iPhone maker's only shot at resuscitating this case now was to go for an appeal.

Yet the Cupertino, Calif.-based corporation now seems steadfast in its hopes of at least arbitrating this case -- a move in which, as Bloomberg reports, "could lead to a global settlement of all of their patent disputes."

Here's a snippet from Apple's argument for arbitration and preventing the case from being dismissed with prejudice:

Finally, the Court should dismiss Apple’s claims without prejudice because the parties are now actively engaged in negotiating the terms of a binding arbitration to resolve their disputes with respect to a license to each other’s standards-essential patents. After Motorola offered to enter into binding arbitration at the November 5 hearing in this matter, the parties exchanged correspondence expressing their desire to arbitrate these matters, and are now negotiating the parameters of such an arbitration. See Exs. 1 and 2. Because a dismissal with prejudice may interfere with Apple’s ability to adjudicate its claims in arbitration proceedings, Apple asks that the Court not dismiss the case with prejudice.

For reference, Apple sued Motorola Mobility in March 2011 after the now Google-owned subsidiary demanded 2.25 percent of all net sales on iOS products that incorporated select industry-standard patents. Apple thought Motorola's demands were excessive.

To read through Apple's entire filing, scroll through the document below:

Apple v. Motorola Mobility: Arbitration

Topics: Legal, Apple, Google, Mobility, Patents

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback

10 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • Probably too late to fool this judge now

    The reason she is proposing dismissal with prejudice is because Apple said they wouldn't agree to be bound by her decision if they thought that the price she would set was too high. Since they would only conditionally accept her judgment she felt there was no good faith basis to continue the suit.

    Now Apple is trying to hedge here to keep the suit alive so they can continue to not pay [any more than what they want to.] They refused to negotiate before and filed suit instead. Now they want to claim that this abusive attempted suit will make arbitration possible.

    Let's see if this tactic works ...
    Still Lynn
    • Sounds to me

      Like they are finally wising up and are trying to settle the issues outside the courts - wich is what they should have done to begin with. From what I recall the issue was MM was trying to charge Apple more than anyone else they licensed the same patents to which defeats the whole purpose and point of FRAND.
      athynz
      • Because...

        Apple refused to let them use Apples patents. They want it all their way, or nobody gets to play. Crybabies getting what they deserve.

        Go thermo nuclear on that!
        timspublic1
      • That was what Apple claimed

        On the flip side they never counter offered before this trial.
        Also on FRAND- if you are not exchanging patents- yes, you are supposed to pay more than someone exchanging patents, otherwise you are discriminating against people contributing to the patent pool....
        kirovs
        • Ummm, no.

          You seem to completely understand the concept of FRAND.
          msalzberg
        • MM (Google) wants $15 per iPhone, and this is ridiculous; so now the ...

          ... parties want arbitration to estimate fair level of fees to each other (Apple has its own claims).
          DDERSSS
          • It's still about 2%

            They should blame the tendency to overprice all of their shiny products. Anyways, so $30 to demand from Samsung's cheaper devices for something ridiculous, like "rounded corners", "rubber band", "look and feel" is totally fair? Now when Apple and MS infringe patents involving real technology, not some teeming with prior art obvious ideas, that the idiots from UPSTO have granted patents for. FRAND, or not - it does not mean you don't pay for it while you rip off others.
            It is funny, how Apple, Microsoft, that blind chorus of their fanboys and fangirls refuse to admit that living by a sword should prepare you for dying by another sword someday.
            eulampius
  • No patent troll should be in the position to arbitrate anything

    P.S. We're a democratic republic, not a plutocratic corporatocracy...
    HypnoToad72
  • Buy Google, Sell Dell

    Apple, please buy Google before Samsung does.
    Steve Nagel
    • Why??

      Although Google is diversified (in a fake kind of way), it is still a one-trick-pony ... who's primary business is collecting data and selling it to the highest bidder.

      And about Dell ... Dell is a dead company with no future. They destroyed themselves by selling junk quality hardware at a premium price. Most companies avoid Dell hardware like it was a plague.
      wackoae