Headline Feeds
Apple (Nasdaq: AAPL) has filed a countersuit against Nokia (NYSE: NOK) in the U.S. District Court of Delaware, alleging infringement on 13 of its patents. The patents that Nokia allegedly infringed have to do with real-time signal processing, teleconferencing and power conservation.
Specifically, Apple technology is incorporated in the Nokia E71, according to the filing, as well as in any other devices that run on the Symbian platform or come equipped with a built-in camera.
The countersuit is a response to Nokia's own filing in October, also in the U.S. District Court of Delaware.
In that suit, Nokia alleged Apple's iPhone infringed 10 of Nokia's mobile technology patents, including those for GSM, UMTS (also known as 3G W-CDMA) and wireless LAN (WLAN) standards covering wireless data, speech coding, security and encryption.
At issue are all Apple iPhone models shipped since the device was introduced in 2007, Nokia said.
Apple and Nokia did not return calls from MacNewsWorld in time for publication.
Classic Strategy
Apple's response is fairly typical of any patent or intellectual property legal dispute for a number of reasons.
For starters, it serves as a disincentive for companies to launch marginal or frivolous suits, Peter Toren, IP partner at Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman, told MacNewsWorld.
"Companies will think twice before suing a competitor if they know they are going to be whacked with having to defend patent infringement charges," Toren said. "It's kind of like the cold war theory of MAD -- mutually assured destruction. You can try to blow me up, but I'm going to take you down with me."
Indeed, a common strategy for any litigation is to try to make it as expensive as possible for the opposing party, Christopher M. Collins, an attorney with Vanderpool, Frostick & Nishanian, told MacNewsWorld. "After the dust settles from the initial suit, you always look for ways to strike back."
It is also a good legal strategy to enlarge the scope of discovery as much as possible.
"The art of litigation is casting a net that is broad enough to get all of the information you want but not so broad as to have the judge come down on you or restrict you," explained Collins.
Especially in IP disputes, a smoking gun could turn up anywhere -- R&D, distribution channels, employment practices -- which is another reason to launch a countersuit, he said.
Race to the Courthouse
Another possibility to consider is that Apple may have been the true aggrieved party all along.
"It could have been that Apple had been calculating whether to bring a suit," Collins suggested, "and Nokia decided to beat them to the punch with its own suit. That happens too."
Countersuits are also effective in a defense, because they allow the original defendant to point fingers at the plaintiff as well instead of merely trying to prove a negative, he added.
There is also this to consider: Defendants may hope that filing a counterclaim will lead to settlement of the dispute through a cross-license agreement, with little or no cash changing hands, according to Paul Lerner, VP and general counsel at General Patent Corporation.
It would have been more suprising if Apple did not bring a counterclaim, Lerner told MacNewsWorld.
As for the most likely outcome, "it is almost impossible to comment on the merits or possibility of success of a particular counterclaim because there can be so many, sometimes conflicting, motivations for the suit," Vanderpool's Collins said.
However, whatever the motivations behind the dual suits may be, Nokia has the most to lose from this legal wrangling, Collins said.
"Mobile technology is very important to Apple, but it is just not as significant as it is to Nokia," he maintained. "If Apple can win on the counterclaims and defend itself successfully, the impact on Nokia will be much more substantial."
