U.S. judge changes mind, grants Apple an injunction hearing against Motorola (and vice versa)

“Judge Richard Posner, the Seventh Circuit judge sitting by designation on the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois to preside over an Apple v. Motorola lawsuit, tentatively dismissed the litigation last week because the parties weren’t able to prove their entitlement to remedies, but he pointed out (as did I in my reporting, unlike many others who wrote about the same thing) that he had not made up his mind on a definitive basis,” Florian Mueller reports for FOSS Patents.

“And indeed, Judge Posner has now granted Apple’s request for an injunction hearing, which will take place next Wednesday at 10 AM local Chicago time… As I explained in my previous blog post on this case, injunctions are an equitable remedy and, therefore, decided by judges, not juries.,” Mueller reports. “The order points out that Motorola may also seek an injunction over the 3G-essential patent it still has in play in this litigation, but will have to ‘address the bearing of FRAND on the injunction analysis.'”

Read more in the full article here.

5 Comments

    1. Federal judges are. State judges usually not – typically they are elected for a number of years, but I think there are some states where the position is for life for certain courts.

  1. Motorola sales after injunction: 0
    Motorola sales without injunction: 1,000 units

    Motorola net savings from shipping, storing and subsequent restocking of 50,000 units in the channel: $2 million.

    Motorola should hope the injunction happens.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.