Microsoft didn't infringe Google patent, ITC judge says

Microsoft didn't infringe Google patent, ITC judge says
An administrative judge at the International Trade Commission (ITC) has found that Microsoft did not infringe a patent held by Motorola Mobility.

After acquiring Motorola Mobility, Google pushed forward with a patent infringement case against Microsoft related to technology used in its Xbox video game console products.



Of the five patents originally involved in the dispute, four of the claims were dropped. The remaining patent covered technology that allows devices to wirelessly communicate over short distances, and Google sought action from the International Trade Commission (ITC), which has the power to ban importation of infringing products into the United States.

On Friday, an ITC administrative law judge issues a preliminary decision finding that Microsoft did not violate a patent held by the Google subsidiary.

"We are pleased with the administrative law judge's finding that Microsoft did not violate Motorola's patent and are confident that this determination will be affirmed by the commission," said David Howard, corporate vice president and deputy general counsel at Microsoft, told Reuters.

A final decision from the ITC in this case is due in July.

Written by: James Delahunty @ 23 Mar 2013 15:51
Tags
Xbox Google ITC
Advertisement - News comments available below the ad
  • 4 comments
  • DXR88

    Quote:allows devices to wirelessly communicate over short distances could we get anymore vague or is the patent really that broad.

    Powered By

    23.3.2013 16:26 #1

  • KillerBug

    Originally posted by DXR88: Quote:allows devices to wirelessly communicate over short distances could we get anymore vague or is the patent really that broad. "Allows a device to do something"...I think Apple owns that one.


    23.3.2013 20:00 #2

  • vendarite

    Originally posted by KillerBug: Originally posted by DXR88: Quote:allows devices to wirelessly communicate over short distances could we get anymore vague or is the patent really that broad. "Allows a device to do something"...I think Apple owns that one.
    "Allows a device to do anything"...Apple thinks they owns that one as well

    23.3.2013 20:56 #3

  • DDR4life

    Lol @ all of the above.

    Now that I think of it... Doesn't crApple claim to have a patent on anything electronic just powering on?

    24.3.2013 15:59 #4

© 2020 AfterDawn Oy

Hosted by
Powered by UpCloud