The fallout from the landmark, Samsung v. Apple patent case continues, as a German court has found in favor of Apple regarding a long-running patent case in which the company alleged that Motorola’s fleet of Android devices infringed on its “rubber band” scrolling animation used in iOS.
The scrolling animation is patented by Apple and used in its operating system to mark the end of a screen when the user drags the screen and lets go, producing the bouncing effect. The ruling follows a previous ruling finding in favor of Motorola in the same court regarding push email patents, which led Apple to disable push email functionality in the country. Motorola Mobility is expected to continue with the appeals process with Google’s help.
However, before the ruling can go into effect, Apple must produce a $26 million bond and a specific listing of Motorola’s devices which violate the patent, while Motorola Mobility does have the option to appeal the ruling; the judge has stated that even if Motorola Mobility were to appeal, the possibility of winning was minute due to the level of infringement involved and the judge also added a requirement to pay past damages to Apple for prior infringement involving the patent, without disclosing the total amount until after the appeals process is completed.
As expected, this latest ruling continues the proxy wars in the larger patent wars between Google and Apple regarding Android, with Apple and Google refusing to respond in the media over the latest court decision. It also continues the growing trend of filing patent litigation in Germany due to the quick turnaround time and inexpensive filing process compared to the US legal system, which is being used as a secondary front for Android litigation and settlements.
This latest ruling is not expected to affect Motorola Mobility in any meaningful way, other than adding a slight hindrance to their short term sales plans for their holiday Android device lineup in Europe. As the company is now under Google’s auspices and has access to their resources, the appeals process for the ruling will be of little consequence despite the judge’s proclamations that the appeal would ultimately prove unsuccessful.