decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


To read comments to this article, go here
HTC-Apple Stipulation Filed with Del. Court Contradicts FOSSPatents on Terms of Agreement ~pj Updated
Thursday, November 22 2012 @ 08:03 PM EST

FOSSPatents has published what it claims is the redacted version of the Apple-HTC agreement settling all claims between them. I didn't link to it or write about it
1) because he doesn't say where he got it, so I could not verify whether it was legitimate or reliable, and

2) because I respect the court's right to decide what is made public and what is not.

And it looks like I was right to wait and see.

The now filed stipulation, titled "Stipulation of Dismissal of Entire Action," in the HTC v. Apple litigation in Delaware states clearly that Apple's claims are dismissed without prejudice but HTC's are dismissed *with* prejudice. That directly contradicts what FOSSPatents claimed was in the 'settlement agreement'. His article claims that both parties claims were dismissed *without* prejudice.

In his article, at fosspatents.com/2012/11/apple-htc-license-agreement-would.html, he wrote:

5. What's clearly unusual is that the dismissals of the parties' various U.S. actions will be dismissals without prejudice, theoretically keeping the door open to future reassertions. This is presumably part of the protection that Apple wanted against a change of control. The change-of-control rules and the kind of dismissal applies to both parties, but realistically, Apple is not going to be acquired during the ten-year term, while HTC is small enough that many other industry players could afford a deal. If anyone wants to buy HTC now, it's still possible, but the Apple agreement won't benefit the new owner (unless the new owner previously secures Apple's consent).
That appears to be incorrect information, judging from the actual stipulation language filed in this US litigation between the parties. What might the explanation be? Maybe what he found is an authentic copy and, not being a lawyer or trained in US law in any way, he just misunderstood it? What else might be inaccurate in the account, then? Maybe it's an earlier draft? Maybe the stipulation is wrong? (I doubt that very much, but I'm listing all the possibilities I can think of.) Maybe I'm misreading something? We'll have to wait and see. Perhaps FOSSPatents can tell the world the source of the version he obtained, so we can get to the bottom of it.

Just trying to keep up with all the misinformation out there. Sooooo much of it. This is why I rarely get a day off and never got to actually retire. The misinformation seems to never quit, and with legal coverage -- as opposed to propaganda, headline seeking or covering the Kardashians -- accuracy is vital.

My advice is simple: rely on what you find on PACER or on checkable information. If you can't check it yourself, how do you know it's so? That is why I always give you a way to check.

If you wish to check the case, it's docket number 1:11-cv-00785-GMS, the GMS standing for the judge's initials.

Here's the text of the stipulation:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

HTC CORPORATION,

Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant,

v.

APPLE INC.,

Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff.

_________________

C.A. No. 11-785-GMS

_________________

STIPULATION REGARDING DISMISSAL OF ENTIRE ACTION

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant HTC Corporation (“HTC”) and Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff Apple Inc. (“Apple”) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), that each and every claim and counterclaim between Apple and HTC in the above captioned matter is hereby dismissed WITH PREJUDICE solely with respect to HTC and WITHOUT PREJUDICE with respect to Apple and to any other person or entity, and that each party shall bear its own costs, expenses and attorneys’ fees.

DATED: November 14, 2012

YOUNG CONAWAY STARGATT & TAYLOR LLP
[signature]
/s/ Karen L. Pascale
Karen L. Pascale (#2903)
James L. Higgins (#5021)
[address, phone, emails]

Attorneys for Plaintiff/Counterclaim
Defendant, HTC Corporation

MORRIS JAMES LLP
[signature]
Richard K. Herrmann (#405)
Mary B. Matterer (#2696)
[address, phone, emails]

Attorneys for Defendant/Counterclaim-
Plaintiff, Apple Inc.

Update: He doesn't explain where he got the agreement and he doesn't admit error. Here's what he does say:
http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/11/google-loan-patents-received-special.html

FOSSPatents now says he wishes to clarify, and he now claims, unprovable one way or another so far, that all patent claims would be dismissed without prejudice under the agreement with respect to HTC and Apple's own patents. As to the ones Google licensed to HTC, he claims those HTC's claims are dismissed with prejudice but Apple's without prejudice.

Looming over all of this is: why did he get it wrong originally, since presumably the Exhibit he claims he found this new information on was attached when he wrote his first article, and where can the public go to verify *any* of this? He also claims a Nokia element to the agreement. So did Microsoft give him the agreement? Or Apple? Or Nokia? What is the real story here and why isn't he telling it straightforwardly?


  View Printable Version


Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )