Top Defense Results: Emblaze Ltd. v. Apple Inc.

DLA Piper and Greenberg Traurig shattered Israeli software firm Emblaze Ltd.'s hopes of winning $511.4 million in royalties from Apple Inc.

In a unanimous decision, a jury decided last June that Apple's live streaming technology - which allows audio and video playback on the iPhone and iPad - did not infringe on a media streaming patent issued to Emblaze by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in 2002.

Emblaze claimed that the Cupertino-based company infringed Emblaze's patented technology to compete with fellow smartphone makers, including rivals Google Inc. and Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. Emblaze Ltd. v. Apple Inc., CV11-1079 (N.D. Cal., filed Mar. 11, 2011).

"Apple's ... solution is nothing but Emblaze's patented solution under another name," said Martin B. Pavane, Emblaze's attorney, during opening arguments. Emblaze further argued that, through its partnerships with media companies, including ESPN and ABC News, Apple influenced consumers to download infringing applications.

"The more apps that go on the phones, the more people are interested in those phones and the more phones they buy," the Cozen O'Connor PC attorney said during closing arguments. But Apple's defense team proved more persuasive.

Though Apple did not manage to win its claim that Emblaze's patent should be invalidated, DLA Piper's Mark D. Fowler convinced an eight-person jury that Apple is not liable for any infringement.

"They are trying to convince you that Apple should pay it money for something Apple doesn't use," Fowler said during opening arguments. "That's not right. That's not fair."

During closing arguments, DLA Piper damages lead John Allcock criticized the methods behind Emblaze's proposed royalties calculation.

A spokeswoman for DLA Piper said Fowler and Allcock were unavailable for comment. Scott J. Bornstein at Greenberg Traurig declined to comment. Pavane also did not respond to requests for comment.

- ALISON FROST