Apple has filed a patent for a computer inside a keyboard, designed for easy transportation.

The patent document, titled "Computer in an Input Device", shows a computer housed entirely in a keyboard, reminiscent of the computer-keyboard combinations popular in the eighties.

Apple's design calls for an input device with a single I/O port for connection to a display and possibly other devices. It could also send or receive power to those devices.

One suggested configuration is a computer housed inside a keyboard, such as Apple's Magic keyboard.

Apple describes the contents of the keyboard as a high-end computer, and says that it would be a useful way to transport a small-footprint, high-end computer without extra cabling that could plug into any display.

This would create "a portable desktop computing experience at any location having one or more computer monitors", the patent document added. "For example, a user can transport a keyboard that houses a computer, as opposed to carrying an entire laptop or a tower and keyboard."

The configuration could also take other forms, it said in its filing.

"The computing device 100 can, for example, correspond to a virtual keyboard, a track pad or touchpad, a mouse, a tablet computer, a combination thereof, or other input devices," it said. A keyboard input mechanism could use capacitive touch rather than moving keys, it added.

Computers housed entirely in keyboard enclosures were a mainstay of the eighties computing market, when all-in-one devices such as Commodore's 64 and Amiga, and Atari's ST housed all of their computing components in a single unit. Even then, they would need external power cables and come with external storage devices or mice. More recently, Raspberry Pi introduced its 400 model, which includes its lightweight computer inside a keyboard (but still uses external power cables and a mouse).

It's possible that we could see a computer inside a keyboard from Apple. However, technology companies often file patents that never lead to commercial products.

US Senators Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) and Ben Sasse (R-NE) have proposed bipartisan legislation mandating strong economic penalties on firms and individuals involved in stealing American intellectual property.

In an interview with Reuters, Van Hollen said the Protecting American Intellectual Property Act is a “direct approach” to battling China’s use of illicit methods for obtaining technological advances made in the US.

The Chinese government insists Washington has exaggerated the problem of intellectual property theft for political reasons. The US, however, says China fails to protect American intellectual property and often steals or forces the transfer of it.

“For too long foreign companies – often enabled by foreign governments – have stolen U.S. technology, which harms the American economy and our national security. The US cannot sit idly by as these companies cheat their way to success at the expense of American businesses and jobs,” said Senator Van Hollen.

“This bipartisan legislation will help end foreign theft of innovative technologies invented in the United States and will send a strong signal to bad actors across the globe. I’m proud to introduce this legislation with Senator Sasse, and I urge the Congress to take it up immediately,” Senator Van Hollen continued.

Senator Van Hollen and Senator Sasse’s bill would require the president to send a biannual report to Congress listing individuals or companies involved in serial theft of U.S. trade secrets that threaten US national security or the US economy. The legislation also requires the president to impose strict economic penalties on such companies.

“We need to stop pulling punches and go after thieves and hackers. It’s time for the US Government to stop leaving an open door for China and other adversaries to steal intellectual property and undercut our strength. We have serious economic tools to fight back, let’s use them,” Senator Sasse stated.

President Trump has already taken action against companies such as Huawei Technologies. In May, President Trump extended an executive order signed in May 2019 for an additional year.

The original order invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and barred U.S. companies from using telecommunications equipment manufactured by entities considered a national security risk.

Kaspersky has won a surprising legal victory against a patent troll that not only resulted in the case being dismissed, but saw the anti-virus firm collect a $5,000 settlement in the process.

The Moscow-based security company was first approached by a patent holder in October last year, who issued a patent lawsuit and demanded a $60,000 cash settlement to make the case disappear.

The patent in question, US Patent No. 6,795,918, was owned by licensing company Wetro Lan LLC, a group that has become synonymous with patent trolling and attempts to squeeze quick wins from technology companies.

Patent '918, which essentially covers principles of a computer firewall, lapsed in 2012 when the original owner stopped making payments, and was later picked up by Wetro Lan in 2015.

Immediately following its purchase, the firm proceeded to engage in "one of most outrageous trolling campaigns we have ever seen", according to the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a nonprofit championing digital civil rights, in which dozens of tech companies were targeted by threadbare lawsuits.

Patent-licensing firms of this kind typically scoop up cheap patents as technology firms go bankrupt, and aggressively target similar companies that appear to infringe on their estate. Patent trolling relies on a company seeking an early settlement, as regardless of the legitimacy of the claim, it would cost more for a tech company to win outright in court.

Wetro Lan argued that earlier builds of Kaspersky's Internet Security Software, built during 2011 and 2012 and the basis of current versions, infringed on the original patent.

However, Kaspersky refused to pay the $60,000 settlement clause, and decided instead to make a point of fighting the case in court. Realising Kaspersky was not backing down and it risked high legal costs, Wetro Lan reduced its "amicable" fee, eventually landing on $10,000, considered a relatively low figure for patent disputes.

At this point, Kaspersky's lawyers decided to issue a counter offer, demanding that rather than handing over $10,000 they would instead demand the sum be paid to them to cover legal fees. After negotiations, Kaspersky accepted $5,000 for its trouble.

Writing in a blog post following the victory, CEO Eugene Kaspersky said: "What's intriguing is that our colleagues and competitors in the industry are doing the exact opposite of what we are. Alas, they prefer to keep feeding the parasites, which, as mentioned, only leads to stronger, hungrier, nastier patent trolling to slow the development of the IT industry."

Patent trolling is particularly prevalent in the US, as unlike disputes in Europe, the law requires that each party pay their fair share of the legal costs. As a result, it's thought that 90% of all patent disputes are related to patent trolls.

In response, US tech firms banded together in July to form a lobbying group that would push through rules to make it more difficult to bring tenuous lawsuits against companies, which has received financial support from the likes of Amazon, Google, Dell, Intel and Oracle.

Apple and Nokia have buried the hatchet after suing each other in a patent dispute.

The iPhone maker has agreed a multi-year patent license with Nokia, resolving two lawsuits - one brought by Nokia last December accusing its rival of infringing on its patents, and another brought by Apple the same month against parties chasing remuneration for Nokia patent use.

Apple will pay Nokia an undisclosed amount in cash, with the promise of future revenues for Nokia presumably derived from Apple's use of its patents. Nokia expects to recognise the revenue in the second quarter of 2017.

"This is a meaningful agreement between Nokia and Apple," said Maria Varsellona, chief legal officer at Nokia, responsible for Nokia's patent licensing business. "It moves our relationship with Apple from being adversaries in court to business partners working for the benefit of our customers."

The lawsuit brought by Apple against patent assertion entitites (PAEs) acting on Nokia's behalf to sue Apple for use of Nokia patents Apple said it had used on fair and reasonable terms (also called FRAND).

It had accused these PAEs of "conspiring with Nokia in a scheme to diffuse and abuse such patents and, as the PAEs and Nokia fully intended, monetize those false promises by extracting exorbitant non-FRAND royalties in ways Nokia could not."

Now, however, the erstwhile foes are friends for perhaps the first time, with Nokia providing Appple with some network infrastructure services under a business collaboration agreement. In return Apple will once again offer Nokia's digital health products in its retail and online stores after it pulled them during the legal dispute.

Top execs from the firms will keep the relationship on track, they claim, as the companies explore further collaboration on digital health.

"We are pleased with this resolution of our dispute and we look forward to expanding our business relationship with Nokia," said Jeff Williams, Apple's chief operating officer.

Under a business collaboration agreement, Nokia will be providing certain network infrastructure product and services to Apple. Apple will resume carrying Nokia digital health products (formerly under the Withings brand) in Apple retail and online stores, and Apple and Nokia are exploring future collaboration in digital health initiatives. Regular summits between top Nokia and Apple executives will ensure that the relationship works effectively and to the benefit of both parties and their customers.

Apple has been told to pay $533 million (340m) after losing a patent dispute against Texas-based Smartflash, which claimed the iTunes creator had infringed on copyrights relating to how its music service accessed and stored downloaded songs, videos, and games.

Although the company first referred in 2013 to iOS apps developed by Game Circus and KingsIsle Entertainment in its argument, Smartflash later decided to extend this to the whole iTunes service.

Both mentioned developers served as defendants in the case, but this was dismissed from the claim in 2014.

Apple said in a statement that Smartflash does not have grounds to claim for such ownership: "Smartflash makes no products, has no employees, creates no jobs, has no US presence, and is exploiting our patent system to seek royalties for technology Apple invented.

"We refused to pay off this company for the ideas our employees spent years innovating and unfortunately we have been left with no choice but to take this fight up through the court system."

However, the jury said Smartflash had a legitimate claim in its three filings, saying it first innovated the techniques to manage the storage of audio, video, game and app files, including the technology used by Apple to ensure the files had been correctly purchased before adding them to the library.

Smartflash originally claimed for $852m (550m) in damages, which was proportionate to the number of iOS and OS X devices sold, but said it was happy with the result. The company has also successfully filed cases against Google, Amazon and HTC, with Samsung its next target for the same patent claims.

Microsoft has applied to patent some new technology that will remove all notifications and adapt settings on your phone according to where you are and what you're doing.

Dubbed Inconspicuous Mode, the setting will detect the user's location based on GPS, NFC, or even the Wi-Fi MAC address and switch off all settings including GPS, Wi-Fi and alarms if they're likely to be asleep or in areas where phones aren't permitted, such as a library, cinema or on a plane.

Additional options include the ability to remove items off the home screen, replace the background image and leave just the clock remaining on the standby screen so you're not distracted by anything else.

It can also sync with your calendar information, so if it knows you're going to a meeting at a certain time, it will switch off everything, dim the screen and mute your device while you're busy.

It's pretty similar to the Do Not Disturb mode on Android devices, although that takes a lot more effort to set up and doesn't de-activate connections depending on the place or events noted in a user's diary.

Inconspicuous Mode could be switched off when people leave a venue, a meeting ends or they manually deactivate it, although this seems to go against the automatic nature of the feature.

Microsoft filed the patent in 2013, but it has only just been approved. Presumably, the tech will only be applied on Windows Phone devices, although if Google or Apple wanted to implement a similar solution, they will no doubt have to pay Microsoft to license it.

It's not clear whether Microsoft will start rolling out the technology to existing Windows Phone devices or if it will make its debut on the next version of Windows Phone - set to be Windows 10 - later this year.

Google has asked the US Supreme Court to reignite an ongoing copyright dispute with Oracle over the Java programming language, which gives core functionality to the Android operating system.

The argument goes back to 2010, when Oracle claimed $1.3 billion in damages against Google for infringing on patents and copyright related to seven Java APIs.

Google was one of the first companies to face Oracle's scrutiny over the use of Java APIs after it acquired Sun Microsystems, the original developers of Java, in 2010.

In 2012, the jury in the case concluded the structure of the APIs used in the Android operating system were not copyrightable.

But in May this year Oracle finally won its case against the search giant after a US judged ruled that Google did not ask for permission to use the APIs.

Now Google is hitting back in a bid to overturn the appeals court ruling from Oracle through the highest court in the US.

Software patent war expert and Oracle consultant Florian Mueller commented on the case in a blog post today that the case is far more interesting from a strategic point of view than the majority of smartphone-related patent disputes by major players, 90 per cent of which are dropped.

"It's a safe guess," said Mueller, "that Google will try to mobilise all sorts of advocacy groups, as it did before, and they will all say the sky is falling on software developers and no one will dare implement APIs anymore."

IT Pro contacted Oracle and Google for more information, but both declined to comment further.

Microsoft has opened up a lawsuit against Samsung, claiming the Korean manufacturer owes the PC manufacturer $6.9m (4.3m) for interest on late payments.

Samsung and Microsoft have two agreements in place with Microsoft, a cross-licensing agreement and a business collaboration agreement, with the latter stating Samsung will promote its Windows smartphones and tablets.

Although Samsung has already forked out roughly $1bn (62.5m) a year in royalty payments for the use of the Android platform, it stopped paying last year because it felt Microsoft had broken the original business collaboration agreement when it bought Nokia.

However, the two companies worked it out and Samsung began paying its dues again, but without the interest Microsoft charged.

Now, Microsoft is going after that money via a New York federal court where it filed the lawsuit in August.

Deputy General Counsel representing Microsoft David Howard said: "We are confident that our case is strong and that we will be successful. At the same time, Microsoft values and respects our long partnership with Samsung, is committed to it, and expects it to continue."

Microsoft began charging manufacturers for using Android, despite it belonging to Google, because the Windows maker believes the smartphone platform uses some of its technology. The company hasn't, however, specified which parts of Android uses Microsoft's tech.

Motorola is the only manufacturer using Android that refuses to pay for the use of the software because it thought the demands were unfair and it hadn't infringed any of the patents Microsoft listed.

A new patent, supposedly filed by Apple, details how users' iPhone's settings may be changed according to their location.

Apple's 'smart lock' patent - described as 'Location-sensitive security levels and setting profiles based on detected location' - will unlock the device and change its settings, including those related to security depending on where users are, using GPS data or a known Wi-Fi network the iPhone may be connected to at a certain location.

Apple said in its patent application with the US Patent Trademark Office: "The security level and/or other device behavior, configurations, or settings on a mobile device can be modified based on the location of the mobile device. The location of the mobile device can be determined by analyzing location aspects present at a location, where any parameters or attributes of a location that can assist in identifying a particular location may be used as location aspects."

The patent could also be used to automatically unlock a device when usres reach a particular place, such as their home or place of work. When the user leaves this place, considered 'secure', it would automatically lock again, preventing unauthorised access to their device.

However, users need to specify the places they would like their iPhone to change its behaviour, keeping the service more secure than if it were to identify their home or workplace automatically as Google Now does.

The patent also hints at the ability to load a user profile depending on the location. For example, if a user's children normally uses their iPad while they're at home, it can be set up to load their profile when the user gets home from work. If the user would prefer that just their business applications appear on their iPad while they're at work, it could load this profile up when the users sets foot in their office.

Although the patent has been filed, there' no guarantee users will see this feature on their devices in the near future. After all, Apple files hundreds of patents every year - many of which never see the light of day.

A list of hundreds of Microsoft patents pertaining to Android have been released by a Chinese language site.

Microsoft has always upheld the stance that it owns a number of patents that have been infringed by Android over the years, kept back as an insurance policy. It sued the Android-powered Nook reader in 2011 as an example.

The patents in the released lists include a number of technologies developed at Microsoft and those it acquired by joining the Rockstar Consortium. The lists were produced in compliance with Chinese antitrust review processes, with Microsoft having to jump through hoops following its purchase of Nokia.

Microsoft posted online following that review the Chinese Ministry of Commerce had found "approximately 200 patent families that are necessary to build an Android smartphone."

The Ministry of Commerce, likely without Redmond's consent, published two lists in which it outlined conditions related to the approved merger of Microsoft and Nokia. The English version of the page does not contain the lists.

The first list concerns all of the patents and patent applications that came with Microsoft's acquisitions, numbering around 310. The latter focused on the 100 that the Ministry of Commerce focused on.

According to the Chinese ruling, 73 patents in the lists are said to be used in smartphones in general, while 127 are implemented in Android handsets. Both sections include patents that Microsoft gained through its participation in the Rockstar bidding.

GPS location systems, simultaneous voice and media calling and tracking users within a wireless network are among the patents that the list defines as being used by Android. Microsoft already earns billions from royalties paid by Android device makers.

As a result of the leak, the public has a much clearer idea of the vice-like grip that Redmond has over Android manufacturers.

Microsoft has previously tried to emphasise a stance of transparency in the patent system, but will likely be disappointed at the revelations by Chinese authorities.

Microsoft and Motorola Solutions have penned a patent licensing agreement, allowing the hardware manufacture to use the Android and Chrome operating systems.

The deal gives Motorola "worldwide coverage under Microsoft's patent portfolio" according to the statement, meaning Moto no longer needs to worry about being sued by Microsoft for installing the platforms on its devices.

Nick Psyhogeos, general manager and associate general counsel for IP licensing of the innovation and intellectual property group at Microsoft, said: "Microsoft and Motorola Solutions share a respect for intellectual property and a commitment to fair and reasonable patent licensing programs. Microsoft prefers licensing to litigation, since licensing is a more effective way to share technology and accelerate the pace of innovation."

Motorola is the latest manufacturer to sign a deal with Microsoft, after ZTE, Samsung, Dell, Sharp, LG, Barnes & Noble, and HTC were also urged to agree on the use of patents to avoid legal action.

Since the Android platform was launched, Microsoft has been trying to stop companies using it without paying a fee for patents it allegedly owns and are embedded into both the Android and Chrome platforms.

Microsoft already gets a small license fee whenever an Android or Chrome device is sold in order "to provide access to Microsoft's significant R&D investments and its growing, broad patent and IP portfolio," the statement reads, even though Google owns both platforms.

Joe White, VP of enterprise mobile computing at Motorola Solutions, said: "We are pleased to have agreed upon a solution that allows our customers to purchase Android products from Motorola Solutions with confidence."

Neither Microsoft nor Motorola Solutions (a separate entity to Google-owned Motorola Mobility) have revealed details of the deal or which patents were infringed.

University of Warwick researchers have developed software that could transform mobile phone cameras into hand gesture recognition (HGR) devices.

The university's research team has developed software that could potentially convert the 2D cameras in smartphones and tablets into devices that can interpret hand gestures in uncontrolled environments.

This is significant as HGR technologies usually require infrared or 3D cameras, as well as artificial light, to work effectively.

Chang-Tsun Li, technology professor at the University of Warwick, said existing technologies struggle to function properly in isolated and non-real life environments.

"Along with the ability to continue working when other people are moving in the background, adapt to changing lighting conditions and to cope when the hand temporarily moves out of sight, our research not only goes beyond existing HGR technology, but it also makes it practical and easily available for consumers," said Li.

HGR is widely used in the gaming industry, and has become a common feature of SMART TVs, but the researchers hope their work will open up the technology to the automotive and health sectors.

As an example, the technology's co-inventor Yi Yao cited surgical settings as a key use case for the software.

"Surgeons, who currently cannot use traditional computers in operating rooms, could search hands-free for data or switch between appliances and similarly, whilst cooking in the kitchen, we could instruct our mobile phones to take a call on speaker or switch to music or video," Yao offered.

The researchers have filed a patent application for the software, and are hopeful that consumer experiences of HGR could lead to their creation being widely adopted.

"Consumers are already aware of existing HGR technology being used, and not always working, with gaming consoles and smart TV[s]," said Yao.

"Whil[e] it will be able to overcome the problems currently faced by users, our new technology could be used in sectors and fields in need of new possibilities."

Cisco and Google are to cross-license patents in an effort to halt potential future legal wrangles.

The partnership deal means each company would license the other's patents without fear of legal action. The agreement covers "a broad range of products and technologies," according to a joint statement and would help in reducing the risk of future litigation.

Both companies failed to disclose financial details around the agreement and did not say which or how many patents are involved.

"Our agreement with Cisco will reduce the potential for litigation, letting us focus instead on building great new products," said Google deputy privacy counsel for patents Allan Lo. "We're pleased to enter into this cross-license, and we welcome discussions with any company interested in a similar arrangement."

Cisco's vice president of Intellectual Property Dan Lang said: "In today's overly litigious environment, cross-licensing is an effective way for technology companies to work together and help prevent unnecessary patent lawsuits," he said. "This agreement is an important step in promoting innovation and ensuring freedom of operation."

Both companies also said the deal would put an end to "privateering" or the transfer of patents to patent assertion entities that harm consumers.

The Cisco deal follows oneGoogle made with Samsungthe previous week. Those two companies pledged to share the content of their respective patent portfolios for the next ten years.

Google is keen to see the back of patent litigation. As reported by IT Pro, thesearch giant was in court against patent owner Intellectual Venturesover a dispute that its Motorola Mobility unit (now sold to Lenovo) infringed three patents covering a variety of smartphone technologies.

Samsung and Google have extended their long-standing tech collaboration by signing a new 10-year patent licensing deal.

The agreement gives the tech giants access to each other's patent portfolios, as well as any new patents either party files over the course of the 10-year deal.

However, the patents will remain the property of whichever firm first filed them. This means neither party will be able to use the other's patents to defend themselves in legal disputes.

The two firms are already closely aligned, thanks to Samsung's reliance on Google's Android operating system, which runs on its hugely popular range of smartphones and tablets.

The financial terms of the deal have not been disclosed.

Allen Lo, deputy general counsel for patents at Google, welcomed the agreement.

"By working together on agreements like this, companies can reduce the potential for litigation and focus instead on innovation," said Lo.

Meanwhile, Dr. Seungho Ahn, head of Samsung's intellectual property centre, added: "Samsung and Google are showing the rest of the industry that there is more to gain from co-operating than engaging in unnecessary patent disputes."

The latter may have been a pointed dig at Apple, who has pursued patent cases against Samsung since 2011 over claims it copied the look and feel of its iPhones and iPads in its own smartphones and tablets.

News of the deal follows on from comments made by Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak back in November about the prospect of Apple, Samsung and Google sharing their tech knowhow to create new products and reduce the risk of litigation.

BlackBerry's patent portfolio is estimated to be worth between $2 - $3 billion, but a bidding war between technology giants could generate even more cash.

The Canadian smartphone maker has 5,236 active US patents and 3,730 active applications relating to wireless communications. After struggling to bounce back with its BlackBerry 10 operating system, the firm is considering licensing out its technology as well as mulling over a potential sale of assets.

Chris Marlett, CEO of MDB Capital Group, an IP-focused investment bank estimated that BlackBerry's patents are worth up to $3 billion to a sole purchaser. However, they have the potential to generate as much as $5 billion if a bidding war is triggered.

"If (there's) a bidding war, I think the number can go as high as $4 billion to $5 billion," Marlett told AllThingsD.

"This is probably the last big and current [wireless] portfolio available. I don't expect any other wireless-focused portfolio this big will come up for sale again anytime soon, so there will be intense interest in this portfolio."

Nortel was the last major firm to sell off patents in 2011. The firm ended up auctioning off 4,000 patents to the Rockstar Bidco consortium, which was made up of Apple, BlackBerry, EMC, Ericsson, Microsoft and Sony. The sale generated $4.5 billion, which is close to the figure Marlett is estimating for BlackBerry's IP.

If BlackBerry does put itself up for sale, potential buyers include the usual suspects - Apple, Google and Samsung. These firms all dominate the mobile market and are always looking for ways to boost their wireless communication portfolios.

Microsoft and Lenovo have also been tipped to make a move for the patents.

According to Marlett, Microsoft would be interested because BlackBerry has traditionally been strong in the enterprise.

"Someone like Microsoft could justify paying $4 billion to $5 billion for the business, and $4 billion to $5 billion for the IP, which would yield an $8 billion to $10 billion purchase price," he said.

However, given that Microsoft is pushing its own Windows Phone platform and already has close ties with Nokia, an outright purchase may be a longshot.

Lenovo, which is now the world's largest PC maker, is also touted as a potential buyer. The firm reported that sales of tablets and smartphones had overtaken PCs for the first time in Q1, and it is looking to invest in the mobile market.

The Chinese firm was linked with potential partnership with BlackBerry in January. After the news that BlackBerry could put itself up for sale, Lenovo CEO Yang Yuanqing was questioned about whether the PC maker would be interested.

"I cannot comment on any specific target or deal. We believe that the PC industry and the mobile phone industry will continue to consolidate. So Lenovo is definitely in a good position to become an important player," Yaunqing told the Wall Street Journal.

"If a target or deal is consistent with Lenovo's strategy, we would take the opportunity."

However, not everyone is convinced BlackBerry's assets will generate interest. Francisco Jeronimo, research director for wireless and mobile communications at analyst firm IDC, remains unconvinced that tech companies will be clambering over each other to buy BlackBerry.

"Will anyone be interested in BlackBerry when they've probably unsuccessfully explored that option? BlackBerry's statement shows lack of interest in the company. If there was any they would be announcing a partnership/acquisition not a sale," he said.

"Remember what Nokia did? Secretly negotiated a strategic option with Microsoft & publicly announced a partnership. BlackBerry did the opposite."

While the focus of last week's agreement between the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Google was search, the deal's restrictions on how the internet giant uses its patents could affect the whole technology industry.

Under the deal, which ended an antitrust investigation by the FTC and disappointed many critics, Google will make only minor changes to its search business.

But Google is also now limited in when it can seek injunctions against products from rival companies that use certain patents.

We know in today's world, defendants are getting more aggressive.

Throughout recent smartphone wars and other major patent litigation, holders of so-called standard essential patents have been accused of using them to bully competitors into paying high licensing rates or as leverage in patent disputes.

The FTC's deal with Google clarifies the uncertainty over how standard essential patents can be used, said Colleen Chien, a professor specialising in patent law at Santa Clara University School of Law in California.

The deal set out a process by which technology makers can avoid injunctions and patent holders know they are going to get compensated, Chien said. "The FTC has deflated the power of the injunction and also the incentives to not pay that have existed."

In its case against Google, the FTC claimed that Google and its subsidiary Motorola Mobility had breached commitments to standard-setting bodies to license its patents on terms that are fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory.

As part of the deal, Google agreed to drop claims for injunctive relief against competitors in certain patent disputes around the world. It also agreed to submit to the jurisdiction of a court or arbitrator when disputes over payment rates arise.

Throughout the FTC's investigation, Google was represented by Susan Creighton of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati and John Harkrider of Axinn, Veltrop & Harkrider. The FTC retained Beth Wilkinson of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison.

Template

The FTC said the threat of injunction by a holder of an essential patent hurts competition. The agreement with Google could be used as a "template" for other patent disputes, it said.

Unlike a court decision, the FTC's agreement with Google is not binding on other companies. But it could give leverage to defendants in disputes with essential patent holders that could be used in court.

"We know in today's world, defendants are getting more aggressive," said Matthew Woods, an antitrust and patent attorney at Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi. "Defendants will seize on this and tell courts that injunctions are something the court should not even countenance."

But the agreement with Google may not be all good news for patent users, according to Jay Jurata, an antitrust partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, who said that it could have unintended consequences.

The elaborate agreement allows Google to seek injunctions against companies that are unwilling to pay for a license on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms.

But the question of when a company is considered an unwilling licensee is one that the FTC may have unwittingly allowed holders of essential patents to manipulate, said Jurata.

"They provided a road map for other standard essential patent holders to engage in opportunistic behavior to paint otherwise willing licensees as unwilling licensees," he said.

Apple has called on a US appeals court to reinstate a pretrial sales ban on Samsung products, as the two firms continue to wage war over patents in several countries.

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in October overturned a pretrial sales ban ordered by a lower court in California. The order was to stop sales of Samsung's Galaxy Nexus smartphone.

Apple argued this was inappropriate and asked for an "en banc review," which means that a larger panel of judges would reconsider the decision made by the three-judge panel in October.

The fight is over a single patent - one that allows the smartphone to search multiple data storage locations at once. For example, the smartphone could search the device's memory as well as the internet with a single query.

Apple argued the sales ban should be reinstated because it uses the patent in question and competes with Samsung. The three-judge panel had said that consumers did not buy Samsung phones primarily because of the patent, and thus, a sales ban was inappropriate.

It has become increasingly difficult for companies to win sales bans related to patent infringement in recent years. Such sales injunctions have been a key for companies trying to increase their leverage in courtroom patent fights.

Apple, in a different patent lawsuit, scored a sweeping legal victory over Samsung in August when a US jury found Samsung had copied critical features of the hugely popular iPhone and iPad and awarded Apple $1.05 billion in damages.

The Nexus phone was not included in that trial, but is part of a tandem case Apple filed against Samsung earlier this year.

Earlier this week, US District Judge Lucy Koh rejected Apple's request for a permanent sales ban against 26 mostly older Samsung phones, though any injunction could potentially have been extended to Samsung's newer Galaxy products. Koh cited the Federal Circuit's Nexus ruling as binding legal precedent in her order.

In a separate court filing on Thursday, Apple said it intended to appeal Koh's ruling.

Microsoft and Google's Motorola phone unit remain millions of dollars apart in their respective valuations of video and wi-fi patents, it has emerged.

The two firms are locked in a legal battle over the patents, the outcome of which is expected sometime next year.

The result could be a key development in the balance of power between Microsoft and Google - and the rest of the technology industry - in the running battle over ownership of the technology underlying increasingly popular smartphones, tablets and game consoles.

A trial, held November 13-20 in the Western District of Washington federal court, was designed to settle the matter of how much Microsoft must pay Motorola for use of two of its standard, essential patents used in its Xbox game console and other products.

In redacted post-trial filings made public on Monday - essentially its final arguments before the judge - Microsoft argued that it should pay no more than $502,000 per year for Motorola's H.264 video compression patent, and no more than $736,000 per year for Motorola's 802.11 wi-fi technology.

Motorola - acquired by Google earlier this year, partly for its valuable patent portfolio - submitted a far larger valuation.

In its filing, also made public in redacted form on Monday, Motorola said it was due payment of 2.25 percent of the selling price of Microsoft products such as the Xbox and Windows 7 operating system that use the patents in question.

Motorola argued that a fair cross-licensing deal would result in net payments to Motorola which it would be willing to cap somewhere between $100 million and $125 million per year, solely for the H.264 patent portfolio.

For the 802.11 patents, it claimed a net payment of 1.15 percent to 1.73 percent of Microsoft end-product prices, which would mean millions of dollars more per year.

U.S. District Judge James Robart is expected to rule on the case early next year.

A US judge has denied Apple's request for a permanent injunction against Samsung Electronics' smartphones, depriving the iPhone maker of a clear market advantage in the mobile patent wars.

Apple had been awarded $1.05 billion in damages in August after a US jury found Samsung had copied critical features of the iPhone and iPad. The Samsung products run on the Android operating system, developed by Google.

Apple and Samsung are going toe-to-toe in a patents dispute that mirrors the struggle for industry supremacy between the two companies, which control more than half of worldwide smartphone sales.

It does not follow that entire products must be forever banned because they incorporate a few narrow protected functions.

For most of the year, Apple had been successful in its US litigation campaign against Samsung. Apple convinced US District Judge Lucy Koh in San Jose, California, to impose two pretrial sales bans against Samsung - one against the Galaxy Tab 10.1, and the other against the Galaxy Nexus phone.

Apple then sought to keep up the pressure after its sweeping jury win. It asked Koh to impose a permanent sales ban against 26 mostly older Samsung phones, though any injunction could potentially have been extended to Samsung's newer Galaxy products.

Yet the jury exonerated Samsung on the patent used to ban Galaxy Tab 10.1 sales, and Koh rescinded that injunction. Then, in October, a federal appeals court reversed Koh's ban against the Nexus phone.

In her order late on Monday, Koh cited that appellate ruling as binding legal precedent, ruling that Apple had not presented enough evidence that its patented features drove consumer demand for the entire iPhone.

"The phones at issue in this case contain a broad range of features, only a small fraction of which are covered by Apple's patents," Koh wrote.

"Though Apple does have some interest in retaining certain features as exclusive to Apple," she continued, "it does not follow that entire products must be forever banned from the market because they incorporate, among their myriad features, a few narrow protected functions."

An Apple spokeswoman declined to comment on Koh's ruling, and a Samsung representative could not immediately be reached.

In a separate order on Monday, Koh rejected a bid by Samsung for a new trial based on an allegation that the jury foreman was improperly biased in favor of Apple.

Intellectual property firm MobileMedia Ideas holds the three patents Apple is accused of infringing. The firm was formed in 2010 by Nokia, Sony and MPEF LA to manage these and other patents. Sony and Nokia each own a quarter of the company.

After seven days of the trial and subsequent deliberation, the jury in the US District Court for the District of Delaware found that the iPhone infringed two patents belonging to Nokia and one to Sony, but did not rule on how much Apple should pay MobileMedia Ideas.

The jury found that the iPhone 3G, 3GS and 4 directly infringed claims in US patent 6,253,075, issued to Nokia and which covers call rejection, and US patent 6,427,078, also issued to Nokia and which covers a data processing device. A third patent owned by Sony, 6,070,068, covering a method for controlling the connecting state of a call, was also found to be infringed by Apple.

MobileMedia Ideas chief executive Larry Horn told the Wall Street Journal that the company could collect "substantial damages." However, he hoped that Apple would instead license the technologies covered in the patents.

"MobileMedia Ideas is pleased that the jury confirmed Apple's iPhones use our patented technology," said Horn.

"MobileMedia Ideas' objective is to make these important technologies and others used in mobile phone and other portable devices widely available. We welcome Apple and others to enter into licenses for the use of these technologies."

In papers filed at the court, Apple asked the judge to rule that MobileMedia's patents are invalid as a matter of law, and that there was no "legally sufficient" basis to find MobileMedia has proven infringement.

According to, patent expert Florian Mueller on Foss Patents Apple could try to fight the verdict. But he said that "an infringement verdict based on six claims from three different patents suggests that Apple will soon have to take a license from MobileMedia Ideas, which means that Nokia, which is already receiving royalties from Apple under a settlement, is going to get even more money from Cupertino."

Apple and Samsung were in court again yesterday, as the iPhone maker tried to convince a US district judge to ban sales of a number of the South Korean company's devices and defended its $1.05 billion jury award.

Apple scored a sweeping legal victory in August at the conclusion of its landmark case against its arch-foe, when a US jury found Samsung had copied critical features of the iPhone and iPad and awarded it damages.

Both sides re-convened on Thursday. US District Judge Lucy Koh listened to a range of arguments on topics from setting aside the jury's findings on liability to alleged juror misconduct and the requested injunction.

The hearing concluded with Koh promising to rule at a later date.

Twenty-four of Samsung's smartphones were found to have infringed on Apple's patents, while two of Samsung's tablets were cleared of similar allegations.

Koh began by questioning the basis for some of the damages awarded by the jury, putting Apple's lawyers on the defensive.

"I don't see how you can evaluate the aggregate verdict without looking at the pieces," Koh said.

Samsung's lawyers argued the ruling against it should be "reverse engineered" to be sure the $1.05 billion was legally arrived at by the jury and said, on that basis, the amount should be slashed. Apple countered that the ruling was reasonable.

"Assuming I disagree with you, what do I do about Captivate, Continuum, Droid Charge, Epic 4G, and Gem?" Koh asked Apple's lawyers, referring to the jury's calculation of damages regarding some of Samsung's devices.

Smartphone wars

Samsung is Apple's fiercest global business rival and their battle for consumers' allegiance is helping shape the landscape of the booming smartphone and tablet industry - a fight that has claimed several high-profile victims, including Nokia.

While the trial was deemed a resounding victory for Apple, the company has since seen its market value shrink as uncertainty grows about its ability to continue fending off an assault by Samsung and other Google Android gadgets on its home turf.

Apple's stock has nosedived 18 per cent since the August 24 verdict, while Samsung's has gained around 16 per cent.

Most of the devices facing injunction are older and, in some cases, out of the market.

Such injunctions have been key for companies trying to increase their leverage in courtroom patent fights.

In October, a US appeals court overturned a pretrial sales ban against Samsung's Galaxy Nexus smartphone, dealing a setback to Apple's battle against Google's increasingly popular mobile software.

Some analysts say Apple's willingness to license patents to Taiwan's HTC could convince Koh it does not need the injunction, as the two companies could arrive at a licensing deal.

Apple is also attempting to add more than $500 million to the $1 billion judgment because the jury found Samsung willfully infringed on its patents. A Samsung lawyer argued against willful damages and said the base amount for calculating any potential willful damages should be just $10 million.

Samsung wants the verdict overturned, saying the jury foreman did not disclose that he was once in litigation with Seagate Technology, a company that Samsung has invested in.

"He should have been excused for cause," said Samsung lawyer Charles Verhoeven. "Such a juror was a juror in name only."

The juror misconduct charge is "unlikely to have much traction," said Christopher Carani, a partner at Chicago-based intellectual property law firm McAndrews, Held & Malloy, Ltd.

The bitter war between Apple and Samsung shows no signs of dying down as the iPhone-maker has asked a federal court to add six more products to its patent infringement lawsuit against the Korean manufacturers.

Apple is seeking to add the Samsung Galaxy S3, which runs the Google's latest Android "Jelly Bean" operating system, the Samsung Galaxy Tab 8.9 Wi-Fi, the Samsung Galaxy Tab 2 10.1, the Samsung Rugby Pro, and the Samsung Galaxy S3 Mini, to its lawsuit, according to a court filing on Friday.

The case is one of two patent infringement lawsuits pending in the US District Court in San Jose by Apple against Samsung. An earlier lawsuit by Apple that related to different patents resulted in a $1.05 billion jury verdict against Samsung on August 24.

"Apple has acted quickly and diligently to determine that these newly-released products do infringe many of the same claims already asserted by Apple," the company said in the filing.

Samsung representatives did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Apple filed the second lawsuit in February, alleging that various Samsung smartphone and tablet products including the Galaxy Nexus infringed eight of its patents.

Samsung denied infringement and filed a cross-complaint alleging that Apple's iPhone and iPad infringed eight of its patents.

A US judge on November 15 allowed Samsung to pursue claims the iPhone 5 also infringes its patents.

A US judge has ordered Apple to disclose to rival Samsung details of a legal settlement the iPhone maker reached with Taiwan's HTC Corp, including terms of a 10-year patents licensing agreement.

The Korean electronics giant had earlier filed a motion to compel its US rival - with whom it is waging a bitter legal battle over mobile patents across several countries - to reveal details of the settlement that was reached on November 10 with HTC but which have been kept under wraps.

The court has ordered Apple to produce a full copy of the settlement agreement without delay.

In August, the iPhone maker won a $1.05 billion verdict against Samsung after a US jury found that certain Samsung gadgets violated Apple's software and design patents.

Now, legal experts say the question of which patents are covered by the Apple-HTC settlement, and licensing details, could be instrumental in Samsung's efforts to thwart Apple's subsequent quest for a permanent sales ban on its products.

The Asian company has argued it is "almost certain" that the HTC deal covers some of the same patents involved in its own litigation with Apple.

The court has ordered Apple to produce a full copy of the settlement agreement "without delay", subject to an Attorneys-Eyes-Only designation.

Representatives for the US company could not immediately be reached for comment.

Samsung also requested the California court to add three newly released Apple products - the iPod Touch 5, the iPad 4 and the iPad mini - to the list of devices that it claims to have infringed on some of its patents, according to court documents.

The settlement of Apple and HTC ended their worldwide litigation and brought to a close one of the first major flare-ups in the global smartphone patent wars.

Apple first sued HTC in 2010, setting in motion a legal conflagration that has since circled the globe and engulfed the biggest names in mobile technology, from Samsung to Google's Motorola Mobility unit.

A Google expert witness testified yesterday that Microsoft will make roughly $94 billion in revenue through 2017 from its Xbox game console and Surface tablet that use the search giant's patented wireless technology.

Michael Dansky, an expert for Google's Motorola Mobility unit, testified on the last day of a high stakes trial over patents between Microsoft and Google in Seattle.

The $94 billion figure he cited also includes a wireless adapter that Microsoft no longer sells. It was not clear how far back he was counting past revenues.

Microsoft declined to comment on the figure.

The week-long trial in a Seattle federal court examined how much of a royalty Microsoft should pay Google for a license to some of Motorola's patents.

Google bought Motorola earlier this year for $12.5 billion, partly for its library of communications patents.

Motorola had sought up to $4 billion a year for its wireless and video patents, while Microsoft argues its rival deserves just over $1 million a year.

If US District Judge James Robart decides Google deserves only a small royalty, then its Motorola patents would be a weaker bargaining chip for Google to negotiate licensing deals with rivals.

The rapid rise of smartphones has sparked an explosion of litigation between major players disputing ownership of the underlying technology and the design of handsets.

You will have a difficult time selling smartphones or tablets without Motorola's technology.

Apple and Microsoft have been litigating in courts around the world against Google and partners like Samsung Electronics, which use the Android operating system on their mobile devices.

Apple contends that Android is basically a copy of its iOS smartphone software, and Microsoft holds patents that it contends cover a number of Android features.

In return, Motorola and some other Android hardware makers launched countering legal action.

Before the trial, Robart said testimony about patent license agreements between Microsoft, Motorola and other tech companies could be disclosed to the public, along with other sensitive financial information.

However, the judge reversed himself this week and said he was bound by appellate precedent to keep that information secret. On Tuesday he cleared the courtroom and heard two hours of testimony in secret.

During the open session, Dansky said Motorola's video patents are crucial to Microsoft and other tech companies, and deserve a high royalty.

"You will have a difficult time selling smart phones or tablets," Dansky said, without Motorola's technology.

Robart is not expected to release a ruling for several weeks as both companies must file further legal briefs.

Apple and HTC have reached a global patent settlement, putting an end to one of the first major conflagrations of the smartphone patent wars.

The consumer electronics giant sued HTC in 2010, accusing the Taiwanese handset company of infringing on the iPhone maker's patented technology. It was Apple's first major legal salvo against a manufacturer that used Google's Android operating system.

We will continue to stay laser focused on product innovation.

Apple and HTC did not disclose specific terms of the deal, which was announced on Saturday. In a joint statement, Apple chief executive Tim Cook said he was glad to reach a settlement.

"We will continue to stay laser focused on product innovation," Cook said. HTC chief executive Peter Chou said his company was pleased to resolve the dispute so it could "focus on innovation instead of litigation."

Since Apple first sued HTC, its smartphone patent war has engulfed competitors like Samsung Electronics and Google's Motorola Mobility unit.

The iPhone maker won a $1.05 billion verdict against Samsung in August, while litigation against Motorola has failed to produce any decisive wins.

However, Apple had the most success against HTC when it came to using litigation to actually disrupt the flow of products into the crucial U.S. market.

Late last year, the US International Trade Commission ruled that HTC had infringed upon one of four patents Apple had disputed and imposed a sales ban on some of the Taiwanese maker's phones.

Though HTC said it had devised a technical workaround to Apple's patents, the company announced in May that shipments of its phones were being held up by US customs officials.

Once one of the industry's high flyers, HTC has been badly hit by competition from Apple and Samsung. Last month HTC forecast a 14.5 per cent fall in revenue in the fourth quarter from the third, worse than analyst forecasts and the second straight quarterly decline this year.

Motorola's parent company Google has made a request to conduct proceedings in private ahead of trial with Microsoft.

Google and Microsoft, like rivals embroiled in smartphone patent wars, are eager to keep sensitive business information under wraps. In this case specifically they are looking to keep royalty deals they cut with other companies on patented technology. Microsoft had also asked for similar protections in a court filing late on Thursday.

However, this could pose a problem as royalty rates are central issue in this trial, which begins November 13 in Seattle.

Google argues that revelations about licensing negotiations would give competitors bargaining power and would lead to an unfair advantage.

US District Judge James Robart has granted requests to block many pre-trial legal briefs from public view. Though he warned he may get tougher on the issue, the nature of the case raises the possibility that even his final decision might include redacted, or blacked-out, sections.

Legal experts are increasingly troubled by the level of secrecy that has become commonplace in intellectual property cases where overburdened judges often pay scant attention to the issue.

Widespread sealing of documents infringes on the basic American legal principle that court should be public, says law professor, Dennis Crouch, and encourages companies to use a costly, tax-payer funded resource to resolve their disputes.

"There are plenty of cases that have settled because one party didn't want their information public," said Crouch, an intellectual property professor at University of Missouri School of Law.

Tech companies counter that they should not be forced to reveal private business information as the price for having their day in court.

The law does permit confidential information to be kept from public view in some circumstances, though companies must show the disclosure would be harmful.

Google argues that revelations about licensing negotiations would give competitors "additional leverage and bargaining power and would lead to an unfair advantage."

Robart has not yet ruled on Google and Microsoft's requests, which, in the case of Google includes not only keeping documents under seal, but also clearing the courtroom during crucial testimony.

It is also unclear whether Robart will redact any discussion of royalty rates in his final opinion. The judge, who will decide this part of the case without a jury, did not respond to requests for comment.

NOT PAYING ATTENTION

Apple and Microsoft have been litigating in courts around the world against Google and partners like Samsung, which use the Android operating system on their mobile devices.

Apple contends that Android is basically a copy of its iOS smartphone software, and Microsoft holds patents that it contends cover a number of Android features.

Google bought Motorola for $12.5 billion, partly to use its large portfolio of communications patents as a bargaining chip against its competitors.

Robart will decide how big a royalty Motorola deserves from Microsoft for a license on some Motorola wireless and video patents.

Apple, for its part, is set to square off against Motorola on Monday in Madison, Wisconsin, in a case that involves many of the same issues.

In Wisconsin, Apple and Motorola have filed most court documents entirely under seal. US District Judge Barbara Crabb did not require them to seek advance permission to file them secretly, nor did she mandate that the companies make redacted copies available for the public.

Judges have broad discretion in granting requests to seal documents. The legal standard for such requests can be high, but in cases where both sides want the proceedings to be secret, judges have little incentive to thoroughly review secrecy requests.

In Apple's Northern California litigation against Samsung, both parties also sought to keep many documents under seal. After Reuters challenged those secrecy requests, on grounds it wanted to report financial details, US District Judge Lucy Koh ordered both companies to disclose a range of information they considered secret - including profit margins on individual products - but not licensing deals. Apple and Samsung are appealing the disclosure order.

In response to questions from Reuters last week, Judge Crabb in Wisconsin, who will also decide the case without a jury, acknowledged she had not been paying attention to how many documents were being filed under seal. Federal judges in Madison will now require that parties file redacted briefs, she said, though as of Wednesday, Apple and Motorola were still filing key briefs entirely under seal.

"Just because there is a seed or kernel of confidential information doesn't mean an entire 25-page brief should be sealed," said Bernard Chao, an intellectual property professor at University of Denver Sturm College of Law.

Crabb promised that the upcoming trial would be open.

"Whatever opinion I make is not going to be redacted," she told Reuters in an interview.

CHECKING THE COMPS

Microsoft sued Motorola two years ago, saying Motorola had promised to license its so-called "standards essential" patents at a fair rate, in exchange for the technology being adopted as a norm industrywide. But by demanding roughly $4 billion a year in revenue, Microsoft says Motorola broke its promise.

Robart will sort out what a reasonable royalty for those standards patents should be, partly by reviewing deals Motorola struck with other companies such as IBM and Research in Motion - much like an appraiser checking comparable properties to figure out whether a home is priced right.

In this case, though, the public may not be able to understand exactly what figures Robart is comparing. Representatives for Microsoft and Google declined to comment.

In its brief, Microsoft said licensing terms could be sealed without the need to clear the courtroom.

"Permitting redaction of this information will minimize the harm to Microsoft and third parties while also giving due consideration to the public policies favoring disclosure," the company argued.

IBM and RIM have also asked Robart to keep licensing information secret.

Chao doesn't think Robart will ultimately redact his own ruling, even though it may include discussion of the specific royalty rates. "I can't imagine that," he said.

Most judges cite lack of resources and overflowing dockets as the reason why they don't scrutinize secrecy requests more closely, especially when both parties support them.

In Wisconsin, Crabb said that even though she will now require litigants to ask permission to file secret documents, it is highly unlikely that she will actually read those arguments - unless someone else flags a problem.

"We're paddling madly to stay afloat," Crabb said.

The Wisconsin case in U.S. District Court, Western District of Wisconsin is Apple Inc. vs. Motorola Mobility Inc., 11-cv-178. The Seattle case in U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington is Microsoft Corp. vs. Motorola Inc., 10-cv-1823.

Samsung Electronics has infringed Apple patents to make its smartphones and tablets, a US trade panel judge has ruled in a preliminary decision.

Apple had filed a complaint in mid-2011, accusing Samsung of infringing its patents in making its Captivate, Transform and Fascinate smartphones, as well as the Galaxy Tablet.

Judge Thomas Pender said that Samsung infringed four Apple patents but did not violate two others listed in the complaint. There had been seven listed initially, but one was dropped during litigation.

The full International Trade Commission will decide in February whether to uphold or reject the judge's decision.

Samsung was found to infringe an Apple patent that helps the touchscreen interpret whether the user wants, for example, to scroll up and down or switch between applications. It was also found to have infringed a patent that allows the device to show an image on a screen with a second, translucent image over it.

Apple is waging war on several fronts against Google, whose Android software powers many of Samsung's devices. The battles between Apple and Samsung have taken place in some 10 countries as they vie for market share in the booming mobile industry.

Apple has asked a federal court in California and the ITC to permanently ban Samsung products that infringe Apple patents. Neither the judge nor the ITC has ruled on the issue.

A Dutch court also ruled yesterday that Samsung did not infringe Apple patents by using certain multi-touch techniques on some of the Samsung Galaxy smartphones and tablet computers.

Apple scored a sweeping legal victory over Samsung in August when a US jury found Samsung had copied critical features of the hugely popular iPhone and iPad and awarded Apple $1.05 billion in damages. Samsung has appealed that verdict.

Google's Android software, which Apple's late founder Steve Jobs denounced as a "stolen product," has become the world's No.1 smartphone operating system. Apple's legal battle against it has dragged in hardware vendors who use it, including Samsung and HTC.

Samsung is also a parts supplier to Apple, producing micro processors, flat screens and memory chips - both dynamic random access memory (DRAM) chips and NAND memory chips - for the iPhone, iPad and iPod. Apple has reduced orders from Samsung for chips and screens

A US appeals court has overturned a pretrial sales ban against Samsung's Galaxy Nexus smartphone, dealing a setback to Apple in its ongoing battle against Google's increasingly popular mobile software.

Apple is waging war on several fronts against Google, whose Android software powers many of Samsung's devices.

The US Court of Appeals ruling is not expected to have an outsized impact on the smartphone market, as the Nexus is an aging product in Samsung's lineup.

The accused product could sell as well without the patented feature.

However, the court's reasoning could make it harder for companies that sue over patents to get competitors' products pulled from the market, said Colleen Chien, a professor at Santa Clara Law school in Silicon Valley.

Sales injunctions have been key for companies that are trying to increase their leverage in courtroom patent fights.

"The Federal Circuit has said, 'Wait a minute,'" Chien said.

Apple declined to comment, while Samsung did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Apple scored a sweeping legal victory over Samsung in August when a US jury ruled Samsung had copied critical features of the hugely popular iPhone and iPad, awarding Apple $1.05 billion in damages.

The Nexus phone was not included in that trial, but is part of a tandem case Apple filed against Samsung earlier this year.

District Judge Lucy Koh issued a pretrial injunction against the Nexus in June, based on an Apple patent for unified search capability. The appeals court then kept that injunction in place until it could formally rule.

In its opinion on Thursday, the Federal Circuit reversed the injunction entirely, saying that Koh abused her discretion.

Apple failed to prove that consumers purchased the Samsung product because of the infringing technology, the appeals court ruled.

"It may very well be that the accused product would sell almost as well without incorporating the patented feature," the court wrote.

"And, in that case, even if the competitive injury that results from selling the accused device is substantial, the harm that flows from the alleged infringement (the only harm that should count) is not."

The court considered a single patent - one which allows the smartphone to search multiple data storage locations at once. For example, the smartphone could search the device's memory as well as the Internet with a single query.

The appeals court has sent the case back to Koh for reconsideration. A separate pretrial sales ban Apple had managed to win against Samsung - targeting the Galaxy Tab 10.1 - was dissolved earlier this month after Samsung won at trial on that patent.

Beyond the Nexus, Samsung also has a collection of new tablets and smartphones intended for launch before the holidays.

On Wednesday, Google executive chairman Eric Schmidt called the intensifying struggle between Apple and his company a "defining fight" for the future of the mobile industry.

Apple has applied for a permanent US sales ban on the Samsung products alleged to have violated its patents.

The consumer electronics giant is also demanding additional damages of $707 million on top of the billion-dollar verdict won by the iPhone maker last month.

Samsung has responded by asking for a new trial.

It is unfortunate that patent law can be manipulated to give one company a monopoly over rectangles with rounded corners.

The world's top two smartphone makers are locked in patent battles in 10 countries as they vie for top spot in the lucrative, fast-growing market.

Apple scored a legal victory over Samsung in late August when a US jury found the Korean firm had copied critical features of the iPhone and awarded the US firm $1.05 billion in damages.

In a motion filed late Friday US time, Apple sought a further $400 million damage award for design infringement by Samsung; $135 million for willful infringement of its utility patents; $121 million in supplemental damages based on Samsung's product sales not covered in the jury's deliberation; and $50 million of prejudgment interest on damages through December 31. The requests together come to $707 million.

Apple wants the injunction to cover "any of the infringing products or any other product with a feature or features not more than colorably different from any of the infringing feature or features in any of the Infringing Products."

Such a wide-ranging sales ban could result in the extension of the injunction to cover Samsung's brand-new Galaxy S3 smartphone.

Samsung, in a filing to the US court, asked for a new trial to be held.

"The Court's constraints on trial time, witnesses and exhibits were unprecedented for a patent case of this complexity and magnitude, and prevented Samsung from presenting a full and fair case in response to Apple's many claims," Samsung said.

"Samsung therefore respectfully requests that the Court grant a new trial enabling adequate time and even-handed treatment of the parties."

In a separate statement, Samsung lamented the fact that patent rulings should cover issues such as the shape of the product in addition to technological points.

"It is unfortunate that patent law can be manipulated to give one company a monopoly over rectangles with rounded corners, or technology that is being improved every day by Samsung and other companies," it said.

The Korean firm recently said it plans to add Apple's new iPhone 5 to the existing US patent lawsuits, stepping up its legal challenge as the two companies seek to assert rights to key technologies.

Research In Motion's (RIM) share price received a boost yesterday after it signed a patent licensing deal with Microsoft to use one of the technology giant's file storage systems.

Microsoft said the patent being licensed by RIM greatly expands the size of files that flash memory devices can handle and increases the speed at which those files can be accessed.

What it does is give investors a glimpse of what the BlackBerry 10 devices can do.

The technology also provides the ability to seamlessly transfer data between a variety of different devices.

"This is potentially money out of RIM's coffers for the right to use the ex-FAT patent in its technology. But what it does for investors and others is provide a glimpse into what the BlackBerry 10 devices can do," said Kevin Restivo, a mobile device analyst at global research firm IDC.

RIM has seen its once dominant position in the smartphone market slip away to Apple, Samsung and other competitors, and the company's fate may depend on the success of its new line of devices, the BlackBerry 10, which is set to hit the market early in 2013.

RIM hopes the BlackBerry 10 will help it regain market share that has been ceded to snazzier devices such as Apple's iPhone and others that run on Google's Android operating system.

"I think there is some anticipation and speculation around the devices that RIM will launch as a result of the announcement today," Restivo said.

Samsung could be preparing to counter sue arch-rival Apple, industry sources claim.

A source told the Korea Times that Samsung has "decided to take immediate legal action" should the iPhone 5 be released featuring LTE (Long Term Evolution) functionality.

Samsung could claim the inclusion of LTE would infringe its patents. Europe and the US "are our primary targets," the source said. The action could also threaten the launch of the rumoured iPad Mini too.

The iPhone 5 is set to be launched on Wednesday 12 September and Samsung has made threats to sue Apple in the past should the firm release an LTE-enabled smartphone.

Apple could also face Taiwanese electronic giant HTC in court next, because it wants to block the iPhone's import into the US on patent violation grounds.

HTC claims Apple's new iPad and the forthcoming iPhone 5 infringe two patents held by the company. These patents concern the reliable transfer of large volumes of data.

The company has filed a case with the International Trade Commission on this matter.

HTC is reported to have acquired patents from ADC Telecommunications when it launched its first LTE-enabled phone, the Thunderbolt.

As well as LTE, the new iPhone is rumoured to have a four-inch retina display, and a completely redesigned body. It is also said to have ditched the traditional 30-pin connector in favour of a smaller 9-pin dock.

As reported by IT Pro, Samsung was recently ordered to pay Apple $1.05 billion in damages after a US jury ruled the Korean company had copied critical features of the iPhone and iPad

The top brass at Apple and Google have been conducting behind-the-scenes talks about a range of intellectual property matters, including the mobile patent disputes between the companies, sources have claimed.

Apple CEO Tim Cook and Google chief Larry Page are understood to have had a phone conversation last week, insiders claim

Page and Cook are expected to talk again in the coming weeks, though no firm date has been set, the sources added.

One source told Reuters that a meeting had been scheduled for this Friday, but had been delayed for reasons that were unclear.

The two companies are keeping lines of communication open at a high level against the backdrop of Apple's legal victory in a patent infringement case against Samsung, which uses Google's Android software.

Last Friday, a jury awarded Apple $1.05 billion in damages and set the stage for a possible ban on sales of some Samsung products in a case that has been widely viewed as a "proxy war" between Apple and Google.

One possible scenario under consideration could be a truce involving disputes over basic features and functions in Google's Android mobile software, one source said.

But it was unclear whether Page and Cook were discussing a broad settlement of the various disputes between the two companies, most of which involve the burgeoning mobile computing area, or are focused on a more limited set of issues.

Competition between Google and Apple has heated up in recent years with the shift from PCs to mobile devices. Google's Android software has become the world's No.1 smartphone operating system.

The popularity of the software has been in tandem with patent infringement lawsuits involving various hardware vendors who use it, including Samsung and HTC.

The latest complaint was filed by Motorola Mobility, now a unit of Google, against Apple at the US International Trade Commission claiming some features of Apple's devices infringe on its patents.

A previous lawsuit between the two in a Chicago court was thrown out by a federal judge, who said neither side could prove damages.

Apple in recent months has moved to lessen its reliance on Google's products. Apple recently unveiled its own mobile mapping software, replacing the Google product used in the iPhone, and said it would no longer offer Google's YouTube as a pre-loaded app in future versions of its iPhone.

Cook took the helm at Apple a year ago, and Page stepped into the top job at Google a few months before that.

The conversation between Page and Cook last week did not result in any formal agreement, but the two executives agreed to continue talking, according to one source.

Google's Larry Page, who sat out several public speaking engagements earlier this summer because of an unspecified medical condition affecting his voice, has continued to run Google's business.

Apple and Google declined to comment on any discussions.

Analysts claim Apple's recent court victory over Samsung is unlikely to damage their business relationship, whereby the South Korean vendor acts as sole supplier of the chips that power the iPhone and iPad.

At an emergency meeting in Seoul early on Sunday following the damning US legal defeat, the South Korean group's post mortem was led by vice chairman Choi Gee-sung and the head of the mobile business JK Shin, rather than by CEO Kwon Oh-hyun, whose primary role is in charge of the components business.

The clear message from Samsung is that a strict internal firewall between its handset business and its components operations remains intact.

While it plans to appeal the U.S. verdict, and a damages bill for $1.05 billion for copying critical features of Apple's popular mobile devices - a sum that could be trebled - Samsung will not want to put at risk its Apple supply contract which is worth billions of dollars.

Apple needs Samsung to make the iPhone and iPad.

As well as being the only supplier of micro processors for the iPhone and iPad, Samsung also supplies DRAM and NAND-type memory chips and flat screens used in the popular Apple gadgets. Samsung products comprise 26 percent of the component cost of the iPhone, Samsung's lead counsel Charles Verhoeven was quoted as saying in the media.

Samsung's component sales could hit $13 billion next year and bring in $2.2 billion in operating profit, according to a recent estimate by Morgan Stanley. That's nearly 8 percent of estimated group operating profit for next year.

Experts and analysts said the symbiotic business relationship between Samsung and Apple is too important for either to put at risk.

"Apple needs Samsung to make the iPhone and iPad. Period. Samsung is the sole supplier of Apple's processing chips and without Samsung, they can't make these products," said James Song, an analyst at KDB Daewoo Securities in Seoul. "Samsung might be considering lots of options to leverage its components business' importance and pressure Apple, and Apple could be also well aware of this."

With that in mind, Samsung had sought to resolve the patent dispute with Apple - which Apple first brought up shortly after Samsung launched its first Galaxy model in 2010 - through negotiation rather than in the courtroom.

"We initially proposed to negotiate with Apple instead of going to court, as they had been one of our most important customers," Samsung said in an internal memo sent to employees and released to the media on Monday. "However, Apple pressed on with a lawsuit, and we have had little choice but to counter sue."

While Samsung has been found to have copied innovative features of the iPhone and iPad, the Korean group's lawyers have emphasized that its own innovative components and wireless technology patents, which the U.S. jury ruled that Apple did not violate, made Apple's products a reality.

"Apple isn't that stupid (to risk its Samsung parts deal). Apple's agreements with Samsung will ensure that Samsung has no choice but to comply and supply," Florian Mueller, an intellectual property consultant, posted on his blog.

"Also, Samsung's other customers would lose faith if it turned out unreliable. And since Apple threatened Samsung with litigation two years ago, it's had plenty of time to identify alternatives."

Samsung itself shrugged off market concerns that its component contracts were at risk due to the litigation. Samsung shares tumbled more than 7 percent on Monday, wiping $12 billion off its market value.

"(The) supply contract remains a separate issue from the litigation and there'll be no change to it going forward," said an executive who took part in Sunday's meeting, which was not attended Jay Y. Lee, chief operating offer and heir apparent to Samsung Chairman Lee Kun-hee, according to the executive.

Kwon was promoted to CEO in June, with JK Shin and BK Yoon leading the telecommunications and consumer electronics divisions respectively so as to avoid potential conflicts of interest, as Samsung supplies parts to its main rivals such as Apple, Nokia, HTC Corp and Sony Corp.

As demand for mobile gadgets has soared, Samsung announced just last week a $4 billion investment to boost output at its U.S. chip plant, where it makes chips for the iPhone and iPad. That comes on top of $2 billion of spending Samsung unveiled two months ago to build a new chip plant and the conversion of existing chip lines to make logic chips to power mobile gadgets.

Supply chain

Apple has been looking to spread its supply chain to reduce its reliance on Samsung. The US firm frequently faces a supply crunch when a new product is launched, triggering a consumer stampede that drives demand far in excess of supply and production capability.

Earlier this year, a source told Reuters that Japan's Elpida Memory was selling more than half of its mobile DRAM chips to Apple.

Samsung is diversifying its customer base to reduce its reliance to Apple.

Samsung mainly competes with Toshiba Corp and Korean rival SK Hynix in supplying memory chips for Apple, and LG Display in flat-screen panels.

Samsung has around 70 percent global market share in mobile DRAMs, but Apple sources only 40 percent of its mobile DRAM chip requirement from Samsung, a boon to the likes of Elpida and SK Hynix, analysts say.

Shares in LG Display, which is widely speculated to supply a new and thinner panel for the next iPhone, jumped more than 4 percent on Monday. SK Hynix slipped 0.5 percent in a flat market.

"For its part, Samsung is also diversifying its customer base to reduce its reliance to Apple - adding new ones like Qualcomm, and that'll prove to be a good strategy longer term as Apple component margins are generally low due to its huge bargaining power," said Daewoo's Song.

"Other suppliers may benefit from a worsening Apple/Samsung relationship in the short term, but in terms of margins, I'm doubtful they can make good money from any Apple cookie crumbs that Samsung throws away."

Samsung's flagship Galaxy smartphone looks very similar to Apple's iPhone, but the South Korean firm has not violated the iPhone design, a Seoul court has ruled.

The South Korean ruling comes as the two technology titans are locked in a high-stakes global patent battle that mirrors a fierce rivalry for industry supremacy between two companies that control more than half the world's smartphone sales.

The two products have a different look.

The Seoul court ruling on Friday comes ahead of more crucial US verdicts. Nine jurors began deliberation on Wednesday in California in one of many disputes between the two firms around the world that analysts see as partly aimed at curbing the spread of Google's Android, the world's most used mobile software.

"There are lots of external design similarities between the iPhone and Galaxy S, such as rounded corners and large screens ... but these similarities had been documented in previous products," a judge at the Seoul Central District Court said on Friday.

"Given that it's very limited to make big design changes in touch-screen based mobile products in general ... and the defendant (Samsung) differentiated its products with three buttons in the front and adopted different designs in camera and (on the) side, the two products have a different look," the judge said.

The judge said it was difficult to say that consumers would confuse the iPhone with the Galaxy given they clearly have the respective company logos on the back of each model, and consumers also factor in operating systems, brand, applications, price, and services when buying a phone.

The judge ordered Samsung to immediately stop selling 10 products, including the Galaxy S II, and also banned sales of four Apple products, including the iPhone 4 and iPad 2.

The court ruled that Apple infringed on two of Samsung's wireless technology patents and was ordered to pay Samsung 40 million won ($35,400). Samsung was fined 25 million won for violating one patent relating to so-called bouncing-back function used when scrolling electronic documents.

The compensation sought by both Apple and Samsung in South Korea is small due to the relatively small size of the market.

The wrangle was triggered by Apple's lawsuit in April last year claiming Samsung slavishly copied Apple's smartphones and tablets. Samsung has countered that it simply developed its own "unique" products in a bid to "best the competition," and that Apple actually owes money for using its patented technology.

In the United States, Apple is demanding more than $2.5 billion in damages and an order to permanently ban Samsung from selling patent-infringing products. Samsung argues Apple owes $422 million for violating a clutch of its patents.

Neither Apple nor Samsung had an immediate comment on the Seoul ruling.

Samsung Electronics has not considered acquiring Research In Motion or licensing the embattled BlackBerry phone maker's new mobile operating system, the company has confirmed.

A lack of support from potential partners such as Samsung could mean more trouble for RIM, which is seeking various options to turn around its embattled business.

Shares of RIM had risen more than 5 percent early on Wednesday after an influential analyst said it may license the BlackBerry 10 system to Samsung.

RIM has lost its initiative in the smartphone market.

"RIM has already lost its initiative in the smartphone market and what is left doesn't look really attractive to the likes of Samsung," said Lee Sei-cheol, an analyst at Meritz Securities. "Should they have a deep patent pool, that might be the most appealing asset to potential acquirers."

Samsung is the biggest seller of phones that run on Google's Android system, but it also makes phones using Microsoft's Windows as well as its proprietary software called bada.

Its strategy of making phones with multiple platforms had raised speculation it may also license BlackBerry's system to stretch its lead over rivals such as Apple and diversify away from Google, which now owns a handset manufacturing business after acquiring Motorola Mobility.

RIM plans to use its new operating system, known as BB10, in a next-generation line of BlackBerrys expected to launch early next year. It is considered RIM's last hope of reversing BlackBerry's steady decline in market share.

RIM's shares have fallen more than 80 percent since the beginning of 2011 when Apple and other smartphone makers started to widen their lead on RIM, which once dominated the business.

Shares in Samsung closed up 1.5 percent on Thursday, versus a 2 percent rise in the broader market.

Amazon.com is planning to hire a slew of intellectual property experts to help it push into patent acquisition and licensing.

Amazon has hired executive recruiting firm Argos Search to help the company hire an intellectual property "Acquisition and Investment Leader" to "identify and evaluate strategic IP acquisition and licensing opportunities," according to a job description obtained this week by Reuters.

The candidate will work closely with all Amazon's technology teams and leaders on future product development, according to the description.

"At Amazon we are rapidly growing in many new and exciting technology areas," the company said in the job posting. "To support and protect our expansion we are seeking an executive to work with our business teams to identify and procure intellectual property."

An Amazon spokeswoman did not respond to an email seeking comment. Thomas Wedewer, an Argos executive recruiter working on the project, declined to comment.

The search suggests Amazon is trying to amass more patents, either through acquisitions of patent-rich companies, purchases of patent portfolios or licensing, according to intellectual property experts.

They are following Apple by delivering digital media to their own hardware.

It is also a sign that the world's largest internet retailer is serious about being a long-term player in mobile devices and digital content, they say.

Amazon is known for developing its own patents, but mostly in the e-commerce area. An expansion into mobile devices and the delivery of digital content to those devices will require a lot of different patents, intellectual property experts say.

"As they get into wireless devices and digital media, they realize the best way to handle this is to get more proactive in IP," said David Pridham of IPNav, which helps companies make money from their patents.

"They are following Apple by delivering digital media to their own hardware devices," he added. "That's the type of technology they want to build an IP fence around."

Buying or licensing intellectual property in these areas will help Amazon protect itself against potential lawsuits alleging it infringes other companies' patents, Pridham said.

"The time for Amazon to go after an IP portfolio is not when they are sued. They want to get the IP ahead of time," he said.

Amazon can also use such patents as a currency for joint ventures and partnerships, according to Vincent Pluvinage, managing partner of Invention Capital Partners.

"Amazon competes with Apple in certain areas and Google in others," Pluvinage said. "It's becoming obvious that building a portfolio is very important both financially and strategically."

Looking outside

Apple accumulated a lot of patents last year when it was part of a group of tech companies that paid $4.5 billion for patent assets from Nortel Networks.

Google agreed to buy Motorola Mobility for $12.5 billion last year, partly to use Motorola's patents to fend off legal attacks on its Android mobile platform.

Technology giants are now lining up to bid on a portfolio of patents being sold by Eastman Kodak.

Amazon has already hired three patent experts this year.

Kelly Jo MacArthur, a former general counsel of RealNetworks, became vice president IP Acquisitions and Investments at Amazon in January, according to her LinkedIn profile.

Bill Way, who was also general counsel at RealNetworks, joined Amazon in April, according to his LinkedIn profile.

RealNetworks, known for its RealPlayer online media software, also owns Helix, a technology for delivering digital music and video to PCs, mobile phones and other devices.

Matt Gordon became a general manager of Patent Acquisitions and Investments at Amazon in May, according to LinkedIn. Gordon came from Intellectual Ventures, one of the largest owners of patents run by former Microsoft Corp executive Nathan Myhrvold.

"Buying patents takes a unique skill set. Hiring someone like Matt is a very positive move," said Grant Moss, chief executive of patent broker Adapt IP Ventures.

Moss said he speaks frequently with Gordon, who declined to comment.

"These hires show that the decision-makers at Amazon are thinking about patent acquisitions now," Moss added. "Amazon has filed quite a few of its own patents, but at some point you have to look outside for other people's patents."

Amazon licensed patents from Acacia Research Corp around the end of 2011, according to Acacia Chief Executive Paul Ryan.

The patents cover technology that includes functionality for tablet computers and smartphones, Ryan said.

Acacia obtained the rights to license the patents from a Japanese company called Access Co, which owns PalmSource. PalmSource developed the Palm operating system that ran on the Treo and other early mobile devices.

"This is related to their foray into tablets," Ryan said. "Initially they were a pretty straightforward online retailer, but they are now getting into more sophisticated areas and need more IP for that."

After the Kindle Fire tablet came out in September 2011, Acacia's licensing executives contacted Amazon about the patents, according to Ryan.

"Amazon was very responsive," Ryan said. "They are pretty sophisticated around emerging IP impacting new initiatives they have."

A federal appeals court revived a patent infringement complaint filed by InterDigital against Nokia.

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said that the US International Trade Commission erred in how it defined critical terms in the two patents in the complaint, and sent the case back to the ITC for reconsideration.

InterDigital sold 1,700 wireless technology patents to Intel for $375 million, in June

InterDigital's shares closed up 14.2 per cent to $31.18 on Wednesday.

Both of the patents involve wireless cellular technology.

InterDigital filed the complaint at the ITC in 2007, and the ITC ruled that Nokia did not infringe. The Federal Circuit decision means that the ITC will take up the case again.

In July 2011, InterDigital said it was looking into a possible sale of the company but it said in January that it had failed to find takers.

In June this year, InterDigital said it had agreed to sell about 1,700 wireless technology patents for $375 million to Intel.

InterDigital, which primarily licenses technology, had second quarter revenues of $71.9 million, and $301.7 million for fiscal 2011.

The case at the Federal Circuit is No. 2010-1093. The case at the ITC is No. 337-613.

Apple's ongoing patent disputes with arch-rival Samsung have been blamed for the removal of the local search function on the Galaxy S3 smartphone.

The Galaxy S3's latest over the air update stops users searching for contacts, apps and other content stored on the device using the built-in Google Search function.

The patch is described as a "stability update". It is being rolled out in the US and internationally to users of unlocked Galaxy S3 devices.

According to a report on mobile news site, Android Central, Samsung has pre-emptively axed the service ahead of its next patent dispute with Apple.

The firm's flagship iPhone boasts similar technology.

The site also claims users are not being warned they stand to lose access to the service when they update.

"The decision to kill local search on the unlocked international model, which isn't sold in the US, is a little perplexing, not least because Apple has yet to challenge [Samsung] over local search in the EU or UK," explained the Android Central article.

Research In Motion (RIM) is under mounting pressure to sell its network business or form an alliance with Microsoft after the Blackberry maker delayed the release of its next-generation smartphones.

Shares in the Canadian company, which announced a steeper-than-expected quarterly operating loss yesterday, plunged 18 percent in extended trading, slashing its market value to $4.1 billion. The stock has fallen about 70 percent in the past year.

The RIM board would prefer to see through its efforts to develop the new BlackBerry 10 operating system.

RIM said the launch of BlackBerry 10 mobile devices has been postponed to early 2013 - more than a year later than initially promised - because the development of its new operating system had "proven to be more time-consuming than anticipated."

The latest setback has increased pressure on RIM's board to more seriously explore other options, including measures that would amount to an admission that it cannot survive by sticking to its current strategy, said the sources, who declined to be identified because the information was confidential.

One of these options is for RIM to abandon its own operating system and adopt Microsoft's upcoming Windows 8. Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer had approached RIM in recent months, looking to strike a partnership similar to the one the software giant has with Nokia Oyj, the sources said. Under that partnership, Nokia will use Microsoft's latest Windows operating system on its smartphones.

In such a scenario, RIM could also look for Microsoft to buy a stake in the company and fund marketing and other expenses, the sources said. However, this option is not attractive to RIM because it would mean the end of the Waterloo, Ontario-based company's technology independence, they said.

The RIM board prefers to see through the efforts to develop the new BlackBerry 10 operating system, according to the sources.

Microsoft could also be interested in RIM's wireless patents, the sources said.

RIM and Microsoft declined to comment.

Another option for RIM would be to sell its proprietary network to a private equity firm or a technology company. The buyer could then open up RIM's network operating centers to other smartphone providers, allowing them to also provide highly secured emails and other services to companies and government agencies, the sources said.

In that scenario, however, RIM's device business is seen to have no future, they said, adding that private equity firms have been considering how to separate the hardware business from the network business.

RIM has in the past considered opening up its network to rivals, under a plan led by former co-CEO Jim Balsillie. That could offer RIM a way forward as demand for its BlackBerry phones faces fierce competition from Apple Inc's iPhone and Google Inc's Android phones.

The idea would be to clearly define the network as an asset that could exist without BlackBerry handsets - an operational precursor that could have led to a possible legal split if the handset business ultimately proved untenable.

RIM is "going to have to be much more open minded to the idea that Jim Balsillie was working on before he was ousted of opening their network to third parties," said Eric Jackson, a hedge fund manager at Ironfire Capital in Toronto.

Europe's antitrust chief, Joaqun Almunia, claims consumers are being "held hostage" by patent wars, as firms try to stop their rivals from developing technologies that might infringe on their intellectual property.

He said the tech industry needs to clarify rules on the use of patents, as this is hindering competition in the EU and worldwide.

I would encourage industry players to come together to prevent the misuse of patents.

"One issue in these cases is the use of court injunctions that can infringe the principle of effective access inherent to Frand [fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory]," Almunia said in a speech at a recent IBA conference on competition law and policy.

"We need to find good answers soon, because consumers cannot be held hostage to litigation."

He said the misuse of patents is closely linked to the more specific area of standard-essential patents, which are important to many industries, including IT.

"It is clear that EU-wide standards can make market integration easier; allow companies to market their goods and services across Europe and the world; and ensure the interoperability of many products, such as communication devices," said Almunia.

He said that competition authorities and the courts should intervene to "ensure that standard-essential patents are not used to block competition."

The industry has a role to play in this, he added: "I would strongly encourage industry players to come together in the relevant standard-setting organisations and elaborate clear rules on the basis of these guiding principles to prevent the misuse of standard-essential patents."

Almunia's department is currently looking into the actions of Motorola and Samsung, and whether their dominant market positions are in breach of EU competition laws.

Apple and Microsoft made complaints over Motorola and how it asserted patent rights over the use of standards-essential mobile technology.

The Commission said Samsung was required to licence the use of patents concerning 3G mobile and wireless technology to other companies on Frand terms.

It also said the company may have contravened this obligation when trying to impose its patent rights against those firms in court.

A US judge has agreed to hear Apple's request for an injunction against the sale of some Motorola phones, giving the iPhone maker a chance to head off a damaging ruling in the smartphone patent wars.

Last week Judge Richard Posner in Chicago canceled a trial between Google's Motorola Mobility unit and Apple, saying in a tentative ruling that neither could prove damages. But in an order on Wednesday, Posner decided to let attorneys plead their case on an injunction before he makes a final decision.

Neither party was available for comment at the time of writing.

Motorola sued Apple in October 2010, a move that was widely seen as a preemptive strike against an imminent Apple lawsuit. Apple filed its own claims against Motorola the same month.

Posner issued a series of pretrial rulings that eliminated nearly all of Motorola's patent claims against Apple from the prospective trial, while maintaining more of Apple's claims against Motorola. That meant Apple had more to gain in the trial, which had been set to start on Monday.

Apple had sought an injunction barring the sale of Motorola products, but in last week's ruling cancelling the trial, Posner said an injunction would be "contrary to the public interest." One legal observer has said Posner's decision had a good chance of getting overturned on appeal, in part because the judge had rejected Apple's request for a hearing.

Posner set the injunction hearing for June 20 in Chicago. Motorola may also ask for an injunction on the one patent in the case that it can still assert against Apple.

An Apple lawyer said the iPhone and iPad maker may seek a legal order to stop the launch of the Samsung Galaxy S3 phone in the United States later this month.

At a hearing yesterday in a San Jose, California federal court, Apple attorney Josh Krevitt said the company could file for a temporary restraining order against Samsung as early as today.

"Once sales are made, the harm is irreparable," Krevitt said.

However, US District Judge Lucy Koh said she has many other cases. If Apple decides to seek a restraining order, it would likely delay a July trial date over different Samsung phones, as well as the Galaxy Tab 10.1.

Once sales are made, the harm is irreparable.

"I cannot be an Apple v. Samsung judge," Koh said.

Apple sued Samsung for patent infringement last year, accusing the South Korean electronics maker of "slavishly" copying the iPhone and iPad. Samsung denies the claims and countersued.

Apple's comments on Thursday came a day after Samsung Electronics, the world's largest smartphone vendor, expanded its CEO's role to include oversight of corporate strategy across the entire Samsung Group - a conglomerate of more than 80 companies.

Choi Gee-sung, 61, spearheaded Samsung's ascension to smartphone and TV leadership and his elevation signals that the storied South Korean conglomerate is grooming its next leader.

Apple filed papers this week seeking to ban Samsung's new Galaxy S3, along with the Galaxy Nexus. Samsung has already booked over 9 million pre-orders of the Galaxy S III, which is set to be sold by carriers in the United States on June 21, Apple said in its court filing.

Samsung, however, argued that Apple should not be allowed to seek such a fast injunction against the Galaxy S III.

Samsung attorney William Price also said the technology covered by Apple's patents - such as auto-correcting typed text - are not responsible for sales of Galaxy phones.

"There is no advertising or marketing on these features at all" by Apple, Price said.

Samsung's Galaxy products run on the Android operating system, developed by Google. In addition to Samsung's legal team, several Google attorneys attended the hearing before Koh on Thursday.

Apple has also accused Google's Motorola Mobility unit of infringing its iPhone patents. However, a Chicago-based federal judge on Thursday tentatively scrapped a trial between those two that had been scheduled to begin next week.

"Neither party can establish a right to relief," Judge Richard Posner wrote.

In California, Koh did not rule from the bench on Thursday on Apple's request for an injunction on the Nexus.

The Mannheim regional court in Germany has upheld an injunction, which means that push emails for Apple's iCloud and MobileMe services will remain suspended in the region.

The court ruled in favour of Motorola on Friday, in relation to a "multiple pager status synchronisation system and method" patent.

However, Apple said the decision does not affect the availability of devices, and that it would be appealing.

"This is the same case Motorola already brought against another Apple entity and the court's decision does not impact product availability," an Apple spokesperson said in a statement to IT Pro.

"Our customers in Germany should have no problem finding the iPad or iPhone they want. However, we disagree with the court's decision and plan to appeal the ruling."

The court said Apple must pay damages to Motorola, but no amount has been specified.

In a short statement, Motorola said it was pleased with ruling and that it will "continue to protect its intellectual property".

The court also considered a dispute over a second patent, relating to 3G standards, but a decision relating to this was not handed down.

Facebook has purchased 750 patents from IBM as the social networking site looks to protect itself from infringement action.

The social network is said to have paid "hundreds of millions" of dollars for the patents, according to a Bloomberg report.

The purchase is seen as a defensive move against Yahoo, which is suing Facebook over alleged patent infringement. Yahoo claims that the social networking site infringed 10 patents, which cover technology using online advertising.

"This is a very big deal," said Erin-Michael Gill, an intellectual property expert at investment bank MDB. Although it's not clear how strong the patents are, Gill said "Facebook is now where it's supposed to be".

The patents bought by Facebook cover technologies including software and networking.

Facebook has previously bought patents from other tech giants and social networks, including HP and Friendster.

The latest purchase comes as Facebook plans to carry out the biggest ever Internet IPO, which could see the company valued at $100 billion.

Motorola has bitten back at Microsoft after the Windows maker yesterday filed a a complaint with the European Commission over alleged abuse of standard essential patents.

In a blog post, Microsoft said Motorola was charging far more than it should for licensing of FRAND (fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory) patents and also slammed Google for not playing fair.

In particular, Microsoft was concerned about how much Motorola was charging for the video standard H.264, but the latter subsequently issued a rebuttal accusing Microsoft of hypocrisy.

Microsoft has simply reversed its position on FRAND in order to suit its current litigation strategy.

"Microsoft's complaint and blog posting ... are simply tactics in the patent battle that Microsoft initiated with surprise infringement actions against Motorola Mobility in October 2010 accompanied by press statements making clear the actions were aimed at Android," a Motorola spokesperson said.

"And Microsoft's complaint with the International Trade Commission sought injunctive relief against Motorola Mobility based on Microsoft's own standards essential patents. With its recent actions, Microsoft has simply reversed its position on FRAND in order to suit its current litigation strategy."

Motorola said it was open to resolving the current licensing dispute with Microsoft "in a mutually beneficial manner."

The mobile maker said it offered Microsoft the same FRAND terms it offered other licensees, but Microsoft rejected Motorola's prposals, "preferring instead to use litigation as its strategy."

"Microsoft has touted the value of patent licensing for its own patents, but a fair resolution requires that Microsoft also recognise the value of the Motorola Mobility patents it is using," the spokesperson added.

Yesterday, Google also issued a somewhat pugnacious response to Microsoft's criticisms.

"We haven't seen Microsoft's complaint, but it's consistent with the way they use the regulatory process to attack competitors," a spokesperson said.

"It's particularly ironic, given their track record in this area and collaboration with patent trolls."

Legal wars over IP, in particular FRAND patents, are getting increasingly heated.

Late last year Apple claimed in a court filing that Samsung was facing an antitrust probe over a potential abuse of FRAND patents against the iPhone creator.

Samsung had reportedly attempted to assert 3G-related patents covered by FRAND licensing commitments.

Microsoft has lodged a competition complaint with the European Commission (EC), claiming Motorola is unfairly trying to block the Redmond giant's products.

The complaint was detailed in a blog post entitled Google: Please don't kill video on the web,' which claimed Motorola was trying to stop sales of Microsoft products by using patents that related to industry standards.

These patents should have been made available to others on fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory (FRAND) terms, but Motorola has not done so and instead used the patents to go after others in court or charge hefty sums for use of them, Microsoft said.

I'm profoundly concerned about the new and growing phenomenon of FRAND abuse tourism.'

"Motorola has broken its promise. Motorola is on a path to use standard essential patents to kill video on the Web, and Google as its new owner doesn't seem to be willing to change course," said Dave Heiner, vice president and deputy general counsel for the corporate standards and antitrust group at Microsoft.

"Unfortunately, Motorola has refused to make its patents available at anything remotely close to a reasonable price."

Microsoft claimed that to use the 50 patents covering the video standard H.264 in a $1,000 laptop, Motorola was asking for a royalty of $22.50. Yet for the 2,300 or more patents related to using that standard, Microsoft would only have to pay two cents.

For a $2,000 laptop, Motorola is asking for double the royalty at $45, the Windows maker said.

"Google has a chance to make a change. For a company so publicly committed to protecting the Internet, one might expect them to join the growing consensus against using standard essential patents to block products," Heiner added.

"Every firm that is willing to pay a fair royalty ought to be able to implement industry standards. Adherence to this basic point is essential to keeping computer costs down and preserving the Internet as an open, interoperable platform."

Microsoft recently said it would not pursue litigation with competitors over "standard essential products."

Last week, it emerged Apple had filed its own complaint against Motorola over the enforcement of standards-essential patents.

IP expert Florian Mueller said he could see where Apple and Microsoft were coming from.

"If every owner of standard-essential patents behaved like Motorola, this industry would be in chaos, and grind to a halt," Mueller said in a blog post.

"I'm profoundly concerned about the new and growing phenomenon of FRAND abuse tourism.'

"As a European citizen, I'm reasonably confident that the Commission will make those companies (and countless others who are watching these high-profile smartphone cases and harboring similar plans) realise that Europe is not a good destination for FRAND abuse tourism."

Motorola said it had not yet received a copy of the complaint, but was "committed to vigorously defending its intellectual property."

Google was a little more pugnacious in its response. "We haven't seen Microsoft's complaint, but it's consistent with the way they use the regulatory process to attack competitors," a spokesperson said.

"It's particularly ironic, given their track record in this area and collaboration with patent trolls."

Microsoft and Google are going after each other in various markets. Earlier this week, Microsoft claimed Google was getting around cookie protections in Internet Explorer.

Google said the P3P policy statements Microsoft was requesting were out-of-date and unusable, claiming many vendors refused to use them.

Various Motorola smartphones could be removed from sale in Germany, after Apple won another court battle in the country.

Presiding Judge Dr Peter Gintz announced the decision in the Munich I Regional Court that many Motorola products infringe on an Apple patent covering the way a device is unlocked "by performing gestures on an unlock image."

Motorola said it plans to appeal the decision, whilst Apple could enforce an injunction on sales of its competitor's devices deemed to have infringed on patents.

Today's ruling is significant bad news for Android at large, and Google.

If Motorola fails to win that appeal it may have to alter its phones in Germany so they don't infringe the related patent and can remain on sale.

Motorola is to be acquired by Google after regulators gave the green light for the deal this month. IP expert Florian Mueller believes the case in Germany will be bad news for the Mountain View giant.

"Apple is asserting the same patent as well as a related utility model against Samsung in Mannheim, and can always bring claims against more Android device makers in this jurisdiction," Mueller said in a blog post.

"Today's ruling is significant bad news for Android at large, and Google.

"In two weeks, Apple may win another Munich decision against Motorola, over a photo gallery page-turning patent. That ruling was also scheduled for today, but postponed. Also in early March, one of Apple's slide-to-unlock cases against Samsung will be adjudicated in Mannheim."

It has also emerged Microsoft has filed patent litigation against Motorola, over IP relating to a "soft input panel system and method" allegedly used in the company's Android devices.

"Today's ruling and the revelation of this new Microsoft lawsuit show that the noose keeps tightening around Android's neck in many ways."

Android has been the focus of much patent litigation. It remains in a protracted battle with Oracle, with the trial expected to start in March. Oracle has alleged Android infringes on patents and copyrights related top Java.

"If the court orders the confiscation and destruction of the forensic material [i.e. the code in question] it would destroy the foundation of the Android application ecosystem," Mueller told IT Pro last year.

Chip giant Intel is looking to establish itself in the mobile space, yesterday announcing it will spend $120 million (76.4 million) on RealNetworks' patents and software.

The deal means Intel will be able to add some extra graphics power and speedy video compression, or decompression, to its products.

RealNetworks, developer of the well-known media player RealPlayer, will still be able to use the 190 patents it is selling to Intel. The processor maker has also bought 170 patent applications.

Selling these patents to Intel unlocks some of the substantial and unrealised value of RealNetworks assets.

"As the technology industry evolves towards an experience-centric model, users are demanding more media and graphics capabilities in their computing devices," said Renee James, Intel senior vice president and general manager of the Software and Services Group.

"The acquisition of these foundational media patents, additional patents and video codec software expands Intel's diverse and extensive portfolio of intellectual property.

"We believe this agreement enhances our ability to continue to offer richer experiences and innovative solutions to end users across a wide spectrum of devices, including through Ultrabook devices, smartphones and digital media."

The two companies have also signed a memorandum of understanding to work together on building next-generation video codec software and related products.

"Selling these patents to Intel unlocks some of the substantial and unrealised value of RealNetworks assets," added Thomas Nielsen, RealNetworks president and CEO.

"It represents an extraordinary opportunity for us to generate additional capital to boost investments in new businesses and markets while still protecting our existing business."

Apple has brought two new lawsuits against Samsung in Germany, as the two continue to do patent battle in Europe.

One lawsuit claims 10 Samsung phones infringe Apple intellectual property, whilst the other alleges five tablets do the same, according to Bloomberg.

Apple has had some success in its patent war with Samsung in Germany. In September, the Dusseldorf Regional Court upheld a ban on the Galaxy Tab. Samsung responded by simply changing its product so it didn't infringe Apple patents and renamed the tablet.

I believe it will be much harder for the two litigants to settle their disagreements over product design than the ones over technical inventions.

IP expert Florian Mueller discovered which design patents Apple was asserting in the smartphone lawsuit, revealing two design rights were being brought to court.

"Both were filed in the names of about a dozen inventors including (in both cases) Steve Jobs and Jony Ive," Mueller said in a blog post.

"I believe it will be much harder for the two litigants to settle their disagreements over product design than the ones over technical inventions For those design rights issues, it may not be possible to structure a mutually acceptable settlement. The two companies may just need the courts to clarify the boundaries of Apple's exclusive design-related rights."

Samsung has attempted to stop Apple selling products across the world, recently trying to get the iPhone 4S banned in France and Italy.