WORLD Law Direct Forums  





Go Back   WORLD Law Direct Forums > Forum Information > Law News
REGISTER FAQ SEARCH Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Personal Lawyer Legal Forms Calendar

Law News Breaking law news and events.

U.S. Court of Appeals Affirms Trial Court's Decision in Motorola vs Texas University

Consult Your Own Personal Lawyer Now!
Reply
AddThis Feed Button
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Rate Thread Display Modes
Old Jul 26th, 2008, 02:38 AM     #1
Veteran Member
 
Metropolitanjury's Avatar
 
Last Online:
Jul 31st, 2008 06:18 AM
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 98

Default U.S. Court of Appeals Affirms Trial Court's Decision in Motorola vs Texas University

In an opinion issued on July 24, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court order granting summary judgment in favor of Motorola, Inc and its customers on infringement claims asserted in a patent case brought by the Board of Regents of the University of Texas System ("University of Texas System"). The University of Texas System had appealed an order by U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks finding that Motorola software, when used in its handsets and its customers' handsets, does not infringe on. U.S. Patent No. 4,674,112 ("the '112 patent").

The '112 patent claims a method for communicating text over telephones using vocabularies of "syllabic elements." The University of Texas System had asserted the '112 patent infringement claim against Motorola and over 30 additional handset manufacturers that incorporated text messaging software into their handsets. The University of Texas System claimed that nearly all mobile handsets in the industry infringed the '112 patent and it sought several hundreds of millions of dollars in damages.

In affirming summary judgment in Motorola's favor, the Federal Circuit held that the District Court correctly construed the phrase "syllabic element," as set forth in the infringement claim, to be limited to character strings of a single syllable in length. The Federal Circuit further held, based on the plain language of the patent, as well as declarations and disclaimers made during the prosecution history, that the '112 patent was limited to a vocabulary of only syllabic elements. Because it was undisputed that neither Motorola nor any of its customers used text messaging software with a vocabulary of only syllabic elements, the Federal Circuit held that there was "no substantive dispute regarding the relevant issues of fact" and affirmed the District Court's ruling of non-infringement.

"Motorola is extremely gratified with the decision of the appellate court confirming our belief that Motorola products did not infringe the University of Texas System's patent claims", said Thomas V. Miller, Motorola Senior Litigation Counsel. "We look forward to a final conclusion of this matter," Miller said.

Motorola was represented before the District Court and on appeal by Charles Verhoeven of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver and Hedges.

By Ms.Bobby Aanand, Metropolitan Jury.
Metropolitanjury is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Add Forum to Google Toolbar | Format Your Messages

Posting Rules

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
US appeals court says Albuquerque voter law legal Unregistered Law News 0 Nov 20th, 2008 03:45 PM
Court decision/Auto Angelina Insurance Issues 0 Sep 25th, 2008 10:25 AM
Appeals court: Phil Spector's retrial can proceed (AP) Yahoo!_news Crimes and Trials News 0 Aug 17th, 2008 11:11 AM
Appeals Court Deflects MSG WSJ_law_blog Law News 0 Mar 19th, 2008 04:00 PM
Appeals Court to Journo: Pay No Fines! For Now WSJ_law_blog Courts, Decisions, Appeals 0 Mar 11th, 2008 08:50 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:51 PM.


Powered by U.S. Legal Forms

Subscribe

Use of the Forums is subject to our Disclaimer which prohibits unapproved advertisements, solicitations or other commercial messages, and false, harassing or abusive statements. All postings reflect the views of the author but become the property of WORLD Law Direct.

Questions and information submitted in the Forums are assumed inquiries for general information and not legal advice.

Copyright 2000-2008 by WORLDLawDirect.com, Inc.