International Trade Today is a service of Warren Communications News.
Debate Over Droids

Motorola Scrutinizes Microsoft Mobile Scheduling Patent in ITC Hearing

Microsoft’s patent infringement case against Motorola Mobility got off to a slow start Monday, the first day of a hearing that’s likely to continue the rest of the month at the International Trade Commission (ITC). The case is the latest chapter in the heated patent battle among industry giants in the Internet and mobile device sectors. Looming over the case is Google’s recent announcement it will buy Motorola Mobility for $12.5 billion (WID Aug 16 p1).

Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article

If your job depends on informed compliance, you need International Trade Today. Delivered every business day and available any time online, only International Trade Today helps you stay current on the increasingly complex international trade regulatory environment.

Microsoft filed a complaint with the commission in October under Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 that Motorola had infringed nine patents relating to its smartphone products. Microsoft said Motorola infringed on patents related to email, calendar and contact syncing of mobile devices as well as notifying applications related to battery power and signal strength. Microsoft said Motorola devices including the Droid 2, Droid X, iL, Cliq Xt, Devour, Backflip, Charm and Cliq infringed Microsoft patents and asked that the court forbid Motorola from selling the products in the U.S.

On Monday, witnesses for Microsoft defended a barrage of technical questions from Motorola’s attorneys about two of the patents in question, ‘054 and ‘566. Motorola’s attorney, Ed DeFranco of Quinn Emanuel, attempted to poke holes in the claims made in one of Microsoft’s patents, number ‘566, which discloses the way a user can generate meeting requests and group scheduling from a mobile device. DeFranco argued that the Microsoft patent was “pretty fuzzy” about the scope of the problem that was being resolved. As for the ‘054 patent, Charles Verhoeven, also of Quinn Emanuel, disputed Microsoft’s definition of resource state information, an integral component to a mobile device’s ability to operate and synchronize data offline.

The hearing will resume Tuesday at 9:30 a.m. in room 101 at the International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW.