Trade Commission Told to Review Google Patent Ruling

Acting on an appeal by Microsoft, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that the ITC erred in its reasoning when it found that the Google unit Motorola Mobility did not infringe a Microsoft graphical interface patent.

After a critical discussion of the ITC judge's reasoning, the appeals court said: "This conclusion requires reversal of the 133 patent non-infringement judgment."

But it also said it agreed with the ITC that Motorola Mobility had successfully changed its smartphones so they no longer infringed the patent.

It also found the ITC was correct in ruling that Motorola Mobility, which was acquired by Google during the legal fight, did not infringe three other patents.

The dispute is one of dozens globally between various smartphone makers. Google's Android system has become the top-selling smartphone operating system, ahead of mobile systems by Apple, Microsoft, Blackberry Ltd and others.

In the original case, the ITC found in May 2012 that Motorola Mobility infringed a patent for meeting-scheduling technology but did not infringe several other Microsoft patents. An order was issued banning infringing mobile phones from the marketplace.

Motorola Mobility says it removed the infringing software from its phones. Microsoft disagrees, and has filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Customs and Border Protection, accusing the agency of failing to properly enforce the ITC order.

Microsoft said it was happy with the appeals court decision.

"We're pleased the court determined Google unfairly uses Microsoft technology," said David Howard, corporate vice president and deputy general counsel. "Google is free to license our inventions, but we're equally pleased if Google makes product adjustments to avoid using them."

A Motorola Mobility spokesman also saw good news in the appeals court decision. "Today's favorable opinion confirms our position that our products don't infringe the Microsoft patents," said spokesman Matt Kallman.

U.S. courts continue to work during the shutdown of the federal government but the ITC is largely shut down.

The case at the ITC was No. 337-744. At the Federal Circuit, the case is No. 2012-1445, -1535.

(Reporting by Diane Bartz, editing by Ros Krasny, Gerald E. McCormick and John Wallace)

Bits Blog: Trade Commission Orders Ban on Some Samsung Products

Google and European Commission Move Toward Antitrust Settlement

Europe’s competition commissioner, Joaquín Almunia, had asked Google in May to make concessions in four areas or face formal antitrust charges, which could mean years of costly litigation and hefty penalties if it lost.

“The commission considers Google’s proposals as a good basis for further talks and has now reached a good level of understanding,” said a commission spokesman, Antoine Colombani. He added that meetings on a more technical level would now be held to reach a settlement.

It was unclear what concessions Google had offered. A spokesman in Brussels, Al Verney, said only, “We continue to work cooperatively with the European Commission.”

The commission found after a nearly two-year inquiry that Google might have given its own products an edge over those of others while maintaining that it offered neutral results.

Google’s search engine has a 90 percent market share in many big European markets, compared with less than 70 percent in the United States, where it is also under investigation.

In May, Mr. Almunia took the rare step of going public with his demand that Google change its business practices, an indication that he was looking to settle rather than go through the time-consuming process of filing charges and making a case — after which the remedies won are often irrelevant in the rapidly changing technology industry.

“These fast-moving markets would particularly benefit from a quick resolution of the competition issues identified,” Mr. Almunia said then, calling this preferable to “lengthy proceedings.”

Nicolas Petit, a law professor at the University of Liège in Belgium, said that he did not believe the commission had a strong case against Google, and that this might have contributed to Mr. Almunia’s unusual offer. “It could have been a bluff, like a poker game,” he said.

On the other hand, Mr. Petit said, Google has a reputation for pushing the boundaries of the law and then backing off when it faces legal challenges, as it did when it began scanning books without seeking permission and then agreed to pay $125 million to settle charges of copyright infringement — a deal later rejected by an American judge.

“Its image is extremely important in its success,” Mr. Petit said, “and that’s why they like settlements — because they can be presented as win-win situations for consumers and the company alike.”

The commission’s investigation began after smaller Web businesses complained that Google had downgraded their sites in its search results or discriminated against them in other ways. Microsoft — itself the target of a decade-long antitrust battle with the commission that resulted in fines and penalties of 1.7 billion euros, or $2.06 billion at the current exchange rate — filed a complaint in March 2011.

The four practices Mr. Almunia listed in May included the way Google displayed links to its services differently from links to competitors’ services, and its use of restaurant and travel reviews from competitors’ Web sites.