Motorola, owned by Google, has been dealt a blow by a US district judge concerning its ongoing rivalry with Microsoft concerning the use of patents. US District Judge James Robart has ruled that Motorola cannot require $4 billion a year in payments from Microsoft for the use of patented wireless technology, noting that the licenses for the technology are worse less than half of that $4 billion sum. The ruling is the latest development in the rivalry, in which both companies sued each other for use of those patents; Motorola accused Microsoft of patent infringement, while Microsoft accused Motorola of excessive licensing fees. It’s part of a larger issue concerning patents within antitrust, as the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers as well as the International Telecommunication Union requires both conglomerates to license essential patents on a RANT basis – reasonable and nondiscriminatory. Judge Robart had previously chastised both companies for being “arrogant” in their cases, arguing that the companies are part of a larger ploy in the fight for “commercial advantage.” The judge’s earlier decision ruled that Microsoft is entitled to a license from Motorola; soon after, a judge in Germany ruled that Microsoft had breached its licensing agreement with Motorola.
Featured News
Federal Court Narrows Turkey Price-Fixing Lawsuit, Clears Perdue and Foster Farms
Jul 9, 2026 by
CPI
Italy Penalizes Character.AI Owner Over Child Safety and Privacy Controls
Jul 9, 2026 by
CPI
State AGs Prepare Antitrust Complaint Against Paramount-Warner Bros. Discovery
Jul 9, 2026 by
CPI
Latham & Watkins Expands Brussels Antitrust Practice
Jul 9, 2026 by
CPI
EU Makes SAP Antitrust Commitments Binding in ERP Support Case
Jul 9, 2026 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Due Process
Jul 7, 2026 by
CPI
The Hart‑Scott‑Rodino Act at Fifty: Procedure, Thresholds, Serial Acquisitions, and Industry Dynamics
Jul 7, 2026 by
Ginger Zhe Jin, Mario Leccese, Daniel Sokol, Liad Wagman & Mengyi Zhong
Due Process In Competition Cases: Reflections As Of 2026
Jul 7, 2026 by
Ian Forrester & Pablo Trevisan
When Referees Become Reformers: Due Process and Constitutional Considerations in Competition Market Investigations
Jul 7, 2026 by
John Taladay & Christine Ryu-Naya
Procedural Fairness in Antitrust Enforcement: A Comparative Analysis
Jul 7, 2026 by
J. Mark Gidley & Daniel Sokol