Verdict Mostly Favors MobileIron in Patent Suit Filed by Good Technology

A U.S. District Court jury in Northern California on Tuesday delivered a mostly favorable verdict to MobileIron in a 2012 patent infringement case filed by Good Technology.

With its verdict, the jury upheld as valid MobileIron’s Enterprise App Store Patent and held that two of Good Technology’s patents were invalid. It also held that MobileIron’s products do not infringe on any of the Good Technology patents in the case.

In addition, it rejected Good Technology’s Lanham Act claim for false advertising.

However, no damages were awarded to either side.

Good alleged in its suit that MobileIron infringed on its mobile-device management (MDM) patents. MarketsandMarkets forecasts the global MDM market to grow from a little more than $1 billion in 2013 to almost $4 billion in 2019. North America is expected to be the largest market in terms of market size, while Europe and Asia Pacific are expected to experience an increase in market traction during the forecasted period.

“Good Technology started this litigation over two years ago in 2012, and we are glad to now have this verdict validating our enterprise app store and affirming our position that we did not infringe any of their patents,” said Bob Tinker, MobileIron’s CEO.

However, Karen Reynolds, Good Technology’s chief communications officer, told Channel Partners that the verdict was “essentially a non-ruling” in the patent-infringement cases between the two companies.

“The jury verdict denied all claims made on both sides in the case, clearly stating that neither Good nor MobileIron was able to enforce any claim or secure any damages in this case,” she said. “Additionally, the jury considered just three of Good Technology’s nearly 300 issued and pending international security and mobility patents.”

Prior to the trial, the court invalidated Good Technology’s patent that covers a workspace data manager to synchronize data on a smartphone. The jury then invalidated two additional Good patents: one that covers a technique of selective wipe and another that focuses on certain device-monitoring technologies.

None of the three patents can now be asserted against any other vendor, pending appeal.

The jury found that MobileIron’s products did not infringe on the one Good Technology patent that wasn’t invalidated, which covers a particular implementation of software distribution.

The jury also held that MobileIron’s products did not infringe the two Good Technology patents that it invalidated. In addition, Good’s product was held not to infringe MobileIron’s patent.

MobileIron and Good Technology have ongoing litigation in other cases in which the companies are alleging patent infringement against each other, as well as inter partes review proceedings against each other’s patents.