Kodak Gains After Winning Decision in Case Against Apple

Eastman Kodak Co. (EK) climbed 5 percent in New York trading after a U.S. International Trade Commission judge said its digital-camera technology doesn’t violate Apple Inc. (AAPL)’s patent rights.

Neither of the two patents in Apple’s case before the ITC were being infringed, and one of the patents is invalid, Judge Robert Rogers in Washington said yesterday. The judge’s findings are subject to review by the six-member ITC, which has the power to block imports of products that infringe U.S. patents.

Apple, maker of the iPhone and iPad tablet computer, filed its case in April 2010, about three months after Rochester, New York-based Kodak accused Apple and BlackBerry maker Research In Motion Ltd. of infringing a patent related to ways of previewing images. The ITC in March said it would review a judge’s findings in that case, which went in favor of Apple and RIM.

Kodak filed its initial complaint to force Cupertino, California-based Apple and Waterloo, Ontario-based RIM to pay patent royalties. Kodak Chief Executive Officer Antonio Perez has said a victory in the dispute may generate as much as $1 billion in new licensing revenue.

The complaint targeted products Kodak makes overseas and sells in the U.S., including the Kodak Z series, M series, C series and Slice cameras, as well as video cameras including the Playsport.

Kodak rose 15 cents to $3 at 4 p.m. in New York Stock Exchange composite trading. Earlier the stock rose as high as $3.09. The shares have fallen 16 percent this year.

David Lanzillo, a spokesman for Kodak, said in a statement yesterday that the company is pleased by the ruling.

The case is In the Matter of Digital Imaging Devices and Related Software, 337-717, U.S. International Trade Commission (Washington).

To contact the reporter on this story: Susan Decker in Washington at sdecker1@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Allan Holmes at aholmes25@bloomberg.net

Bloomberg reserves the right to remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus.