I chased up the 9th Circuit opinion to try to get an idea as to why Judge
Robart could prevent Motorola enforcing their German injunction.
I also
found Judge Robart's order dated February 17 invalidating claims involving "means
for decoding" in Motorola's patents. IANAL, but it seems to me that the
reasons for doing so are in accordance with CAFC precedent, and indeed the
reasons for invalidation are the same as those in the Functional Media v. Google case (see also the discussion on PatentlyO about the FM v. Google
case. It would seem that the patent lawyer at Motorola was ill-advised to
use "means plus function" language in a claim to a device that
required programming. Had the patents claimed "a decoder wherein..."
I suspect that the claims would have been OK.
In the end, I remain of
the view that, in discussing general policy regarding the availability of
injunctions in patent cases involving software, smartphones, standard-essential
patents etc., one should step back from the circumstances of particular cases,
and consider whether, on balance, the availability of injunctions in patent
cases on balance causes more harm than good. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
| 
