MOSCOW, November 6 - RAPSI. A US federal court dismissed with prejudice Apple’s patent licensing claims against Google’s Motorola Mobility Monday. The trial had been scheduled to begin at 1pm, and the dismissal was issued shortly after 11:30 that same morning.

The order, issued by the Judge Barbara Crabb of the US District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, stated simply: “court finds that case cannot proceed to trial on remaining issue; case dismissed with prejudice.”

On Friday November 2, the court had issued an order questioning whether hearing the case would be an abuse of its discretion.

Specifically, Apple sought specific performance in the form of the court’s determination of a FRAND (fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory) rate.

The judge expressed concern at that point that Apple had still refused to be bound by any such rate if set higher than $1 per phone. To this point she noted, “I questioned whether it was appropriate for a court to undertake the complex task of determining a FRAND rate if the end result would be simply a suggestion that could be used later as a bargaining chip between the parties.”

As explained by the judge at that point, specific performance is only ordered in exceptional cases; damages are the traditional remedy for contract disputes.

To succeed in a claim for specific relief, a party must illustrate each of the following four elements: “(1) that it has suffered an irreparable injury; (2) that remedies available at law, such as monetary damages, are inadequate to compensate for that injury; (3) that, considering the  balance  of hardships  between the  plaintiff  and  defendant, a remedy in equity is warranted; and (4) that the public interest would not be disserved by a permanent injunction.”

The court noted that Apple had failed to demonstrate that it had suffered an irreparable injury and had failed to demonstrate why money damages would be insufficient in this case.

The court expressed concern that it would be poorly situated, considering all additional factors, to determine a FRAND rate: “As I explained at the final pretrial conference, courts are not in the best position to determine a FRAND rate for a portfolio consisting of hundreds of patents that would be used later in licensing negotiations between two highly sophisticated parties…. Apple’s request that the court determine the  FRAND  rate  places  an enormous  and  possibly  unjustifiable  burden  on the  judiciary’s resources. In light of this reality, it would not be in the public interest for the court to spend such enormous resources to determine a FRAND rate that may ultimately lead only to additional litigation and would set a troubling precedent for future cases involving FRAND commitments.”

In closing Friday’s order, the court asked the parties to respond to these and other points addressed therein by Sunday, but told both parties to prepare for trial as if it would go ahead as planned Monday afternoon.

Monday morning, Judge Crabb dismissed with prejudice.

After Monday’s order was issued, Apple promptly filed a memo urging the judge either to allow the trial to go forward, or to dismiss its claims without prejudice.