News

Android Patent News: Apple Targets the Galaxy Nexus, Weekly Recap

By Android in Canada Editorial TeamUpdated

Archive note. This story reflects what was known when it was first covered. Prices, availability and carrier offers are historical. For the current picture, start with the topic guides.

#patentfun was a weekly summary of litigation around Android. Opinions below are the original writer’s.

Apple seeks an injunction

The writer saw two problems. First, the Galaxy Nexus is a pure Google device, so the action effectively targets Google while going through Samsung. Earlier cases had mostly been aimed at makers with their own interface layer. Second, the patents cited were seen as broad:

  • One covering data being used as a hyperlink
  • One covering unified search
  • One covering slide to unlock
  • One covering word completion

The writer argued that tappable text and universal search predate the iPhone, and that other companies work on text prediction too. Apple had already won a battle over the first patent against HTC, though workarounds apparently existed.

Motorola and Microsoft

Motorola could receive licensing of up to 2.25% from Microsoft. The patents relate more to a video product than to Android, but it was notable to see Microsoft paying for once. Motorola was expected to seek the same 2.25% figure from Apple in its FRAND patent suit. At the time, Google’s purchase of Motorola was about to close.

Google’s FRAND letter

Google wrote that it would follow FRAND licensing rules and would not abuse patents to seek injunctions. FRAND stands for fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory. The writer was unsure whether it was an empty gesture or a public relations move, noting that Google had not yet gone after anyone with its patents.

Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1N

The Galaxy Tab 10.1N was cleared. The writer joked that the N stood for non-infringing.

Frequently asked questions

What does FRAND mean?

Fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory licensing of essential patents.

Why was the Galaxy Nexus significant?

It ran Google's unmodified software, so the case touched Google's platform directly.

How did the injunction request end?

The post does not say, so the result is unknown from this article.

This page is part of an informational archive. See the disclaimer.