法官駁回其稍早的投訴剛到一周，諾基亞再度把智能手機(jī)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)對(duì)手蘋果告上了美國(guó)國(guó)際貿(mào)易委員會(huì)(ITC)，指控蘋果侵犯了它的另外七項(xiàng)專利。
在最新起訴中，諾基亞稱蘋果侵犯了與手機(jī)、便攜音樂播放器、平板電腦和個(gè)人電腦相關(guān)的專利。這些實(shí)際上是蘋果生產(chǎn)的全部產(chǎn)品。蘋果否認(rèn)侵權(quán)，并反訴諾基亞。
“在ITC提出的第二次投訴，堅(jiān)持諾基亞稍早向ITC投訴的主張。ITC于周五(3月25日)宣布對(duì)諾基亞的稍早投訴作出判決。諾基亞不同意ITC關(guān)于未違反第337條款的初步裁定，并將在看到這次裁決的完整細(xì)節(jié)后，再?zèng)Q定下一步動(dòng)作，”諾基亞在聲明中表示。
“除了向ITC提出的這兩次投訴，諾基亞還在美國(guó)特拉華州就同樣的專利權(quán)提出訴訟，并在德國(guó)曼海姆、杜塞爾多夫和聯(lián)邦專利法院，倫敦的英國(guó)最高法院和荷蘭海牙地方法院提起訴訟，其中幾個(gè)將在數(shù)月內(nèi)進(jìn)行審理，”諾基亞表示。
隨著競(jìng)爭(zhēng)加劇，電信設(shè)備與個(gè)人計(jì)算產(chǎn)業(yè)去年發(fā)生多起專利侵權(quán)訴訟和反訴，尤其是在智能手機(jī)和平板電腦領(lǐng)域，廠商都在積極爭(zhēng)奪領(lǐng)先地位。由于蘋果在這兩個(gè)領(lǐng)域占優(yōu)勢(shì)，自然成為眾矢之的，現(xiàn)在告它侵犯專利的廠商不僅有諾基亞，還有其美國(guó)同業(yè)摩托羅拉。
去年10月，摩托羅拉分別提起三個(gè)侵權(quán)訴訟，指控蘋果侵犯了大約18項(xiàng)專利，涉及多種應(yīng)用。摩托羅拉也向ITC投訴，“指控蘋果的iPhone、iPad、iTouch和某些Mac電腦侵犯了摩托羅拉專利?！蹦ν辛_拉還請(qǐng)求伊利諾斯州北區(qū)法院和佛羅里達(dá)南區(qū)法院就其投訴做出裁決。
在10月份的訴訟提出后大約兩周，摩托羅拉與諾基亞簽署了一份交叉授權(quán)協(xié)議，覆蓋其3G移動(dòng)產(chǎn)品，包括LTE、WiMax和LTE-Advanced技術(shù)。這兩家公司都不太可能在近期內(nèi)與蘋果簽署類似的協(xié)議。諾基亞早在10年前就對(duì)蘋果提起了訴訟。
“我們的最新ITC投訴，意味著我們現(xiàn)在起訴蘋果侵犯了諾基亞的46項(xiàng)專利，許多侵權(quán)訴訟10多年前就提出來(lái)了，當(dāng)時(shí)蘋果還沒有推出其第一款iPhone，”諾基亞負(fù)責(zé)知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)的副總裁Paul Melin表示，“在生產(chǎn)杰出移動(dòng)產(chǎn)品所需的技術(shù)方面，諾基亞是領(lǐng)先的創(chuàng)新者，蘋果必須停止使用諾基亞的自主創(chuàng)新來(lái)生產(chǎn)其產(chǎn)品?！?
最近這次諾基亞與蘋果之間的專利糾紛，是ITC收到的眾多投訴之一。攝影設(shè)備生產(chǎn)商柯達(dá)曾對(duì)蘋果和智能手機(jī)生產(chǎn)商Research In Motion Ltd. (RIM)提起訴訟，希望能從這兩家公司身上獲得10億美元的專利使用費(fèi)。ITC上周同意針對(duì)柯達(dá)的訴訟展開調(diào)查。ITC的一名法官最初曾駁回這起針對(duì)蘋果與RIM的訴訟。
蘋果也曾在美國(guó)一家聯(lián)邦法院控告摩托羅拉。蘋果指控，摩托羅拉的幾款智能手機(jī)侵犯了它的六項(xiàng)專利。蘋果在2010年初的時(shí)候還提起了另外一項(xiàng)訴訟，指控諾基亞侵犯其13項(xiàng)專利。這些訴訟都還沒有得到解決。
我認(rèn)為，最可能的結(jié)果是，這些公司之間的專利戰(zhàn)還將持續(xù)幾年，直到他們面臨ITC或法院可能做出不利判決的前景。屆時(shí)各方將不得不簽訂廣泛的交叉授權(quán)協(xié)議。
本文授權(quán)編譯自EBN，版權(quán)所有，謝絕轉(zhuǎn)載！
相關(guān)閱讀：
• Android大軍侵蝕，Nokia必須高舉差異大旗
• 聯(lián)姻微軟，諾基亞技高一籌還是臭棋一招？BOcesmc
參考原文：Nokia-Apple Patent War Heats Up，by Bolaji Ojo
{pagination}
Nokia-Apple Patent War Heats Up
Bolaji Ojo
Barely a week after a judge rejected its earlier complaint, Nokia Corp. (NYSE: NOK) has again hauled smartphone rival Apple Inc. (Nasdaq: AAPL) before the US International Trade Commission (ITC), alleging that the American company has violated another seven of its patents.
In the new complaint, Nokia said Apple is infringing on patents related to mobile phones, portable music players, tablets, and personal computers -- virtually all products manufactured by the California-based company, which has rejected the allegations, and has in turn filed counterclaims against Nokia.
"This second ITC complaint follows the initial determination in Nokia's earlier ITC filing, announced by the ITC on Friday, March 25. Nokia does not agree with the ITC's initial determination that there was no violation of Section 337 in that complaint and is waiting to see the full details of the ruling before deciding on the next steps in that case," Nokia said in a statement.
"In addition to the two ITC complaints, Nokia has filed cases on the same patents and others in Delaware, US and has further cases proceeding in Mannheim, Dusseldorf and the Federal Patent Court in Germany, the UK High Court in London and the District Court of the Hague in the Netherlands, some of which will come to trial in the next few months," the company added.
The telecommunication equipment and personal computing industry has seen numerous cases of patent violation allegations and counter-allegations over the course of the last year as competition heated up, especially in the smartphones and tablet PC sector where manufacturers are jostling for leadership. With Apple dominating in the two segments, the company has been a bigger target for rivals and is now facing complaints over patent infringement from not only Nokia but also fellow American OEM Motorola Mobility Inc. (NYSE: MMI).
In October, Motorola filed three separate infringement lawsuits alleging Apple violated about 18 patents covering a wide range of applications. The company also filed a complaint with the ITC "alleging that Apple's iPhone, iPad, iTouch and certain Mac computers infringe Motorola patents." Motorola also asked a court in the Northern District of Illinois and the Southern District of Florida to rule on its complaints.
About two weeks after the filing of that October complaint, Motorola and Nokia signed a cross-licensing agreement to cover their 3G cellular products, including LTE, WiMax, and LTE-Advanced technologies. It's unlikely either company would be striking a similar agreement with Apple in the near future. Nokia's complaints against Apple go back 10 years.
"Our latest ITC filing means we now have 46 Nokia patents in suit against Apple, many filed more than 10 years before Apple made its first iPhone," said Paul Melin, vice president of intellectual property at Nokia. "Nokia is a leading innovator in technologies needed to build great mobile products and Apple must stop building its products using Nokia's proprietary innovation."
The latest Nokia-Apple patent spat is one of numerous complaints before the ITC. Photography equipment maker Eastman Kodak Co. has filed complaints against Apple and smartphone maker Research In Motion Ltd. (RIM) (Nasdaq: RIMM; Toronto: RIM) in the hopes it could seek royalties worth about $1 billion from the two companies. The ITC last week agreed to open investigations into Kodak's complaint. A judge with the ITC had initially dismissed the complaint against Apple and RIM.
Apple itself has filed complaints against Motorola in a US Federal court. Apple's lawsuit alleged violations of six patents used by Motorola in several of its smartphones. This is in addition to a separate complaint, filed at the beginning of 2010, in which Apple alleged Nokia was in violation of 13 of its patents. None of the lawsuits has yet been resolved.
What's most likely to happen, in my opinion, is that all these companies will keep firing off patent violation allegations for several more years until they're faced with the prospect of an unfavorable ITC or court ruling. That would force the parties into a broad cross-licensing agreement.
