Apple had been seeking to obtain licenses for some of Motorola's patents, and wanted the court to essentially force Motorola to license them to Apple at a reasonable rate (technically called a "FRAND" rate). Apple said it would pay up to $1 per device sold, but Motorola wanted more: a 2.25% royalty payment on every device.
In asking the court to settle the matter, Apple said it didn't want any court-determined rate to be binding, and that it would appeal any ruling that settled on a rate of more than $1 per device.
As first reported by Reuters, the judge took a dim view of Apple's stance. In a pre-trial brief, Judge Barbara Crabb wrote that she "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."
Whether or not any judgment in the case would have any meaning, considering Apple didn't consider itself bound by it, was apparently a major point of discussion in the days leading up the the dismissal. In its final filing in the case, Apple had asked the judge, if she dismissed the case, to at least not dismiss it with prejudice.
That request fell on deaf ears, however, and the judge did exactly that. The case can still be appealed but, since it now has the "with prejudice" label, can't be re-filed with the same claims.
This dismissal is just the latest in Apple's legal woes over patents. Although the company won a landmark $1 billion decision against Samsung in August, Apple has lost cases in Korea and Europe since then, and was even forced to run ads in the UK saying Samsung didn't copy the iPad.
What do you think would help usher companies toward a ceasefire in the ongoing patent wars? Leave your suggestions in the comments.