The U.S. International Trade Commission ruled Friday that Apple did not infringe three of Motorola Mobility's patents, while remanding the investigation into a fourth patent to the presiding administrative law judge.
The ITC decided to review in part in June an earlier determination by the administrative law judge after receiving comments from the industry and the Federal Trade Commission, which were critical of allowing import bans that involved alleged infringement of standards-essential patents.
[ Last week a jury decided Samsung copied Apple's designs for iPhone and iPad. | Stay ahead of the key tech business news with InfoWorld's Today's Headlines: First Look newsletter. | Read Bill Snyder's Tech's Bottom Line blog for what the key business trends mean to you. ]
The ITC ruled last week that Apple did not infringe U.S. patent numbers 6,272,333 (the '333 patent), 6,246,697 ('697 patent), and 5,636,223 ('223 patent). The 6,246,862 ('862 patent) related to a sensor controlled user interface for a portable communication device has been remanded to the ALJ.
"Motorola was one of the earliest mobile phone innovators, and much of Apple's success builds on our foundational work. We're considering our options as we continue to push for patent peace," Motorola said in a statement in response to the ITC order on Friday.
Motorola, now a Google-owned company, filed a complaint against Apple in November 2010, alleging that Apple's products like some models of its Mac computers, iPad and iPhone devices violated some of its patents.
In a final initial determination in April, the ALJ Thomas B. Pender had found a violation of the '697 patent, though he did not find infringement of the other patents. The ALJ also found that claim 1 of the '862 patent was invalid as indefinite, which the commission has reversed, and remanded to the ALJ to consider issues of infringement, validity and impact on domestic industry.
In May, the ALJ recommended to the commission a "cease and desist" order that prohibited the sale of any commercially significant quantities of Apple's accused products if it was found to violate, as the company held substantial inventories in the U.S. The order would be in addition to an import ban.