ITC Finds Kodak Did Not Infringe on Apple Patents

| News

Kodak is not infringing on patents owned by Apple Inc., according to ruling handed down Monday by the U.S. International Trade Commission. The ITC was reviewing a decision issued by an Administrative Law Judge in May of 2011 who had sided with Kodak in complaints filed by Apple, and upheld that ruling.

The case was part of a back-and-forth battle between Apple and Kodak relating to digital cameras in Apple’s iPhones. Kodak has been quite successful in using ITC complaints and lawsuits in forcing companies to pay licensing royalties for some key patents that Kodak owns. Today’s ruling concerned counter claims that Apple had filed in response to an initial round of claims by Kodak.

“We are pleased that the commission has confirmed the [Administrative Law Judge’s] finding that there is no violation by Kodak,” a Kodak spokesman said in a statement.

Among the smartphone makers that Kodak has already settled with are Korean giants Samsung Electronics and LG Electronics.

Apple and Kodak still have cases pending in court, but today’s ruling is likely to protect Kodak from claims of infringement from Apple as those cases work their way through to completion.

Apple vs. Kodak

Apple vs. Kodak

Popular TMO Stories



And Apple’s stock price showed a reaction to this news. Up $7+.

Oh, not to mention the forthcoming earnings report is supposed to kick some serious butt.

Bosco (Brad Hutchings)

This outcome seems to defy Nemo’s earlier probability lesson. The commisioners here should have overruled the ALJ on both patents, and found that both were valid and infringed by Kodak.


Having read Nemo’s posts and your responses; it looks to me that you are misrepresenting his statements. I took his initial post to mean that probability has little to nothing to do with these cases.

Bosco (Brad Hutchings)

Actually, he said that the probability of of the commission agreeing on each of the 10 counts in Apple’s complaint against HTC with the ALJ was quite low and that Apple would more likely prevail on all 10 instead of just 2. He basically said that conclusions of the ALJ were irrelevant in the process. I’m saying that they are quite relevant. If that point was lost on you, I’m sorry. Nemo’s thesis was absurd, so I dug into my own bag of absurd to make the counter point.

Log in to comment (TMO, Twitter or Facebook) or Register for a TMO account