According to Bloomberg:

Nokia Oyj (NOK1V) won an almost two-year patent struggle against Apple Inc. (AAPL), as the world’s two largest mobile-phone makers settled litigation in a deal that awards a one-off payment and royalties to the Finnish handset maker.

Nokia rose as much as 4.1 percent in Helsinki trading. The agreement will bolster the Devices & Services unit’s second- quarter profitability, Espoo, Finland-based Nokia said in a statement today. The details of the contract, under which Apple will pay Nokia an undisclosed sum and royalties for the term of the agreement, are confidential, the Finnish company said.

...

A critical point going unreported is whether Nokia received a cross-license to Apple's patents that will cover them as they devolve into a hardware supplier and distribution channel for Microsoft. Whether Microsoft is licensed may now be more important than whether Nokia is licensed. (SEE UPDATE BELOW)

While this is positive news for Nokia, the rumored amount of the settlement is unlikely to make up for Nokia's plunging revenues even for a quarter. At the time of this writing, Nokia shares are still well below their immediate post-warning level.

Update via telegraph.co.uk:

In a statement, Apple said "Apple and Nokia have agreed to drop all of our current lawsuits and enter into a license covering some of each others' patents, but not the majority of the innovations that make the iPhone unique. We're glad to put this behind us and get back to focusing on our respective businesses."

This will not be the end of Apple and Nokia's patent battles.

 

Previous coverage:

• Nokia v. Apple @ ITC: Full Commission Review in 337-701
• Nokia v. Apple @ ITC: Moving Forward
• Bloomberg: ITC Staff Recommends Siding With Nokia, HTC in Apple Patent Case
• FOSS Patents: Updated Apple vs. Nokia battlemap
• Nokia v. Apple: Take Me to the (Palm)Pilot
• D.Del Nokia v. Apple Complaint
• Nokia v. Apple: Why now?
• Nokia files second ITC complaint against Apple
• Reuters: US panel says Apple did not infringe Nokia patents

Nokia has been granted Full Commission review of a narrow portion of the ALJ's Final Initial Determination in the 337-701 investigation of Apple.  The investigation originally involved seven patents.  Matters related to only two will be reviewed. According to the Commission Notice:

 

On March 25, 2011, the ALJ issued his final ID, finding no violation of section 337 by Respondents with respect to any of the asserted claims of the asserted patents. ... Regarding the ’181 patent, the ALJ found that the accused products do not infringe its asserted claims. The ALJ also found that none of the cited references anticipated or rendered obvious the asserted claims. With respect to the ’256 patent, the ALJ found that the accused products failed to literally infringe the asserted claims and failed to infringe under the doctrine of equivalents. The ALJ also found that the asserted claims were not invalid for obviousness and were not rendered unenforceable due to inequitable conduct. ...The ALJ concluded that an industry exists within the United States that practices the ’789 patent but that a domestic industry does not exist with respect to the ’091 patent, the ’181 patent and the ’256 patent as required by 19 U.S.C. § 1337(a)(2) and (3).

...

Having examined the record of this investigation, including the ALJ’s final ID, the petitions for review, and the responses thereto, the Commission has determined to review the final ID in part. Specifically, the Commission has determined to review the findings related to the ’181 patent and the ’256 patent. The Commission has determined not to review any issues related to the ’957 patent, the ’091 patent, and the ’789 patent, and terminates those patents from the investigation.

(emphasis added)

 

Thus, Nokia would need the Full Commission to overturn the ALJ's findings on infringement and domestic industry to truly prevail.  The Commission's questions to the parties relate primarily to construction of "acoustic cavity" in the '181 and "integrated mobile terminal processor" in the '256.

Nokia and Apple have been busy at the ITC.  On April 26, 2011, Nokia's request for a USITC investigation based in part upon PalmPilot sync patents was granted.  Nokia is also the respondent in the 337-704 and 337-710 investigations initiated by Apple.

Susan Decker at Bloomberg provides background here.

 

Previous coverage:

• Nokia v. Apple @ ITC: Moving Forward
• Bloomberg: ITC Staff Recommends Siding With Nokia, HTC in Apple Patent Case
• FOSS Patents: Updated Apple vs. Nokia battlemap
• Nokia v. Apple: Take Me to the (Palm)Pilot
• D.Del Nokia v. Apple Complaint
• Nokia v. Apple: Why now?
• Nokia files second ITC complaint against Apple
• Reuters: US panel says Apple did not infringe Nokia patents

Nokia's request for a USITC investigation based in part upon PalmPilot sync patents has been granted.  From the ITC news release:

April 26, 2011
News Release 11-039
Inv. No. 337-TA-771
Contact: Peg O'Laughlin, 202-205-1819

USITC INSTITUTES SECTION 337 INVESTIGATION ON CERTAIN ELECTRONIC DEVICES, INCLUDING MOBILE PHONES, MOBILE TABLETS, PORTABLE MUSIC PLAYERS, AND COMPUTERS, AND COMPONENTS THEREOF

The U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) has voted to institute an investigation of certain electronic devices, including mobile phones, mobile tablets, portable music players, and computers, and components thereof. The products at issue in this investigation are smartphones, music players, and computers.

The investigation is based on a complaint filed by Nokia Corporation of Finland; Nokia, Inc., of White Plains, NY; and Intellisync Corporation of White Plains, NY, on March 28, 2011. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 in the importation into the United States and sale of certain electronic devices, including mobile phones, mobile tablets, portable music players, and computers, and components thereof that infringe patents asserted by the complainants. The complainants request that the USITC issue an exclusion order and a cease and desist order.

The USITC has identified Apple Inc. of Cupertino, CA, as the respondent in this investigation.

By instituting this investigation (337-TA-771), the USITC has not yet made any decision on the merits of the case. The USITC's Chief Administrative Law Judge will assign the case to one of the USITC's six administrative law judges (ALJ), who will schedule and hold an evidentiary hearing. The ALJ will make an initial determination as to whether there is a violation of section 337; that initial determination is subject to review by the Commission.

The USITC will make a final determination in the investigation at the earliest practicable time. Within 45 days after institution of the investigation, the USITC will set a target date for completing the investigation. USITC remedial orders in section 337 cases are effective when issued and become final 60 days after issuance unless disapproved for policy reasons by the U.S. Trade Representative within that 60-day period.

 

Previous coverage:

• Bloomberg: ITC Staff Recommends Siding With Nokia, HTC in Apple Patent Case
• FOSS Patents: Updated Apple vs. Nokia battlemap
• Nokia v. Apple: Take Me to the (Palm)Pilot
• D.Del Nokia v. Apple Complaint
• Nokia v. Apple: Why now?
• Nokia files second ITC complaint against Apple
• Reuters: US panel says Apple did not infringe Nokia patents

According to Bloomberg:

HTC Corp. (2498) and Nokia Oyj (NOK1V) shouldn’t be found liable of infringing Apple Inc. (AAPL)’s patents, the staff of the U.S. International Trade Commission recommended.

A staff lawyer, Erin Joffre, disclosed the position at the start of an ITC trial in Washington today in which Apple is seeking to ban imports of mobile phones made by HTC that run Google Inc.’s Android operating system, as well as block some Nokia devices. The staff acts on behalf of the public as a third party in the case. Its recommendations aren’t binding.

[...]

Update: I contacted Susan Decker of Bloomberg who told me that this did seem to be a separate recommendation based on a belief of lack of infringement, not just a reiteration of last weeks OUII request regarding the domestic industry requirement.

FOSS Patents: Updated Apple vs. Nokia battlemap:

"The entire 41-page document, which shows the escalation of the dispute and contains detailed reference list, is available on Scribd."

The final map on page one of the Scribd document is a bit confusing, but if you page through, Mueller has an annotated build-up of the chart, tracking each move and counter-move by the parties.

(Via Florian Mueller @ FOSS Patents.)

Three of the seven patents at issue in the newly filed D.Del. and ITC cases relate to database synchronization, particularly contact sync for personal information managers (PIMs).  The patents trace back to Puma Technology in the mid 1990s. Puma created Intellisync for the then US Robotics PalmPilot, prior to the 3Com acquisition and the later spin-out of Palm Inc.

Claim 2 of the asserted '911 patent seems quite broad.  It specifies that PIM records are selected based upon a filter comprising user-selectable conditions or fields that must match, and the subset of records is synchronized with a second database.

I would not be surprised to see reexamination requests for these patents in the near future.

 

Bibliographic information and a select claim from each of the three patents follows:

 

7,209,911 (continuation of '529, which is a continuation of '664)

Synchronization of databases using filters

Inventors:	Boothby; David J. (Nashua, NH), Morgan; David W. (Derry, NH)
Assignee:	Intellisync Corporation (San Jose, CA)
Appl. No.:	09/776,452
Filed:	February 2, 2001

2. A computer implemented method of synchronizing at least a first and a second personal information management database of the type having a plurality of records, wherein the records of the first and second personal information management databases include fields, the method comprising:

• using a filter to select a plurality of records of the first database, 
  • the filter comprising one or more user selectable conditions or criteria that fields of records of the first database must match or fit to be selected, and
  • selecting the plurality of records of the first database includes evaluating fields of the first database with the user selectable conditions or criteria, and
• synchronizing the selected records of the first database with records of the second database, 
  • the synchronizing comprising adding, modifying, or deleting records, whereby synchronization is performed for a subset of the records of the databases.

(claim 1 seems to differ in specifying "user-definable criteria" instead of "user selectable criteria.")

 

6,212,529 (continuation of '664)

Synchronization of databases using filters

Inventors:	Boothby; David J. (Nashua, NH), Morgan; David W. (Derry, NH), Marien; John R. (Nashua, NH)
Assignee:	Puma Technology, Inc. (San Jose, CA)
Appl. No.:	09/036,400
Filed:	March 5, 1998

1. A computer implemented method of synchronizing at least a first and a second personal information management database wherein the records of at least the first database include a text field, the method comprising:

• using a filter to select a plurality of records of the first database, 
  • the filter comprising one or more user definable conditions or criteria that a record must match or fit to be selected, 
    • wherein the conditions or criteria include a user definable text criterion, and selecting the plurality records of the first database includes comparing the text field with the text criterion; and
• synchronizing the selected records of the first database with records of the second database, 
  • the synchronizing comprising adding, modifying, or deleting records,
• whereby synchronization is performed for a subset of the records of the databases.

 

6,141,664

Synchronization of databases with date range

Inventors:	Boothby; David J. (Nashua, NH)
Assignee:	Puma Technology, Inc. (San Jose, CA)
Appl. No.:	08/748,645
Filed:	November 13, 1996

1. A computer implemented method of synchronizing at least a first and a second database each containing dated records such as events, wherein the records of the first database extend across a narrow date range narrower than the date range of the records of the second database, the method comprising:

• performing a prior synchronization across a prior date range set using the date of the prior synchronization and the narrow date range;
• storing the prior date range and a history file containing information representative of the content of the databases following the prior synchronization;
• performing a current synchronization across a date range that combines the prior date range with a current date range set using the date of the current synchronization and the narrow date range.

 

In addition to the previously mentioned seven-patent ITC matter, Nokia also filed a six-patent infringement suit against Apple in the District of Delaware on March 28, 2011:

This is an action brought by Nokia against Apple Inc. ("Apple") for Apple's infringement of Nokia's patents. In particular, Nokia seeks remedies for Apple's infringement of Nokia's U.S. Patent Nos. 7,209,911 ("the 911 Patent"), 6,212,529 ("the 529 Patent"), 6,141,664 ("the 664 Patent"), 6,445,932 ("the 932 Patent"), 5,898,740 ("the 740 Patent"), and 7,319,874 ("the 874 Patent") (collectively, the "Asserted Patents").

For Nokia / Intellisync:


Local Counsel: 
Jack B. Blumenfeld & Rodger D. Smith II of Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnel LLP
Of Counsel: 
Patrick J. Flinn, John D. Haynes, & Alan L. Whitehurst, Alston & Bird LLP 


Source:

PACER, Case 1:11-cv-00259-UNA Document 1 

Why is Nokia launching a flurry of patent suits and ITC investigations now, four years after the iPhone was announced?  More than wanting a cut of Apple's profits, I think it's about needing licenses to Apple's patents to stay in the game.


Over at FOSSPatents, Florian Mueller ponders Nokia's motivations:

Many observers and analysts will now try to form an opinion on whether this latest action by Nokia is a sign of strength or weakness. I have thought about this and concluded that there is a significant degree of frustration shining through Nokia's announcement because things take so long, but more than anything else, Nokia is sending out a strong and unambiguous message that at the end of this epic battle Apple is going to have to send royalty checks to Finland.
Nokia's patent portfolio is roughly five times larger than Apple's. They both operate in the same industry resulting from the convergence of computing and communications technologies. Theoretically one "killer patent" can be stronger than a thousand other patents, and there are indeed significant quality differences between the patent portfolios of major high tech companies. But it's hard to imagine that Nokia's patents are, on average, so much weaker than Apple's that the outcome could be anything else than Apple being required to pay.

I personally have no trouble imagining that Nokia's patents are so much weaker, especially when we follow the money, and particularly, the profits.

While the relative size of Nokia's patent portfolio is certainly relevant, the direction in which money will eventually flow is presumably related to the financial damage each party's portfolio could do to the other party, and each party's ability to take the risk of such damage.  Damages, in turn, should be related to profit contributions of the inventive aspects of the patents.

Apple's share of mobile phone industry profits exceeds the combined profits of the rest of the vendors combined.   Some may argue that Apple's handset profits are derived from the persuasive marketing of "shiny things."  I would argue that their profits are highly related to the inclusion in their products of the signature iPhone features, which Apple itself, as the first mover, has patented extensively.

Why is Nokia launching a flurry of patent litigation activity right now?  I suspect a key factor is the recent agreement with Microsoft.  If the new Microsoft-Nokia phones are profitable, a significant portion of the profits will likely be attributable to their having those signature iPhone-like features.  Apple could make a very strong argument, based on the profit share in the market, that it is those features that are key to Nokia's profits, if such profits arise.

Apple likely has more than a "killer patent."  They have a "killer portfolio," because they decided to "think different" about this space for years before anyone else knew what they were doing.  I suspect Nokia desperately wants a cross-license agreement so they can continue to play.

Via Nokia:

Published March 29, 2011

Alleges Apple infringes additional Nokia patents in virtually all products

Espoo, Finland - Nokia has filed a further complaint with the United States International Trade Commission (ITC) alleging that Apple infringes additional Nokia patents in virtually all of its mobile phones, portable music players, tablets and computers.

The seven Nokia patents in the new complaint relate to Nokia's pioneering innovations that are now being used by Apple to create key features in its products in the areas of multi-tasking operating systems, data synchronization, positioning, call quality and the use of Bluetooth accessories.

This second ITC complaint follows the initial determination in Nokia's earlier ITC filing, announced by the ITC on Friday, March 25. Nokia does not agree with the ITC's initial determination that there was no violation of Section 337 in that complaint and is waiting to see the full details of the ruling before deciding on the next steps in that case.

In addition to the two ITC complaints, Nokia has filed cases on the same patents and others in Delaware, US and has further cases proceeding in Mannheim, Dusseldorf and the Federal Patent Court in Germany, the UK High Court in London and the District Court of the Hague in the Netherlands, some of which will come to trial in the next few months.

"Our latest ITC filing means we now have 46 Nokia patents in suit against Apple, many filed more than 10 years before Apple made its first iPhone," said Paul Melin, Vice President, Intellectual Property at Nokia. "Nokia is a leading innovator in technologies needed to build great mobile products and Apple must stop building its products using Nokia's proprietary innovation."

During the last two decades, Nokia has invested approximately EUR 43 billion in research and development and built one of the wireless industry's strongest and broadest IPR portfolios, with over 10,000 patent families. Nokia is a world leader in the development of handheld device and mobile communications technologies, which is also demonstrated by Nokia's strong patent position.

Details to follow when the filing becomes available.