to block Kodak's efforts to use the disputed patents as collateral for loans. [ 210 ] In the January complaint Kodak claimed violations of the same image preview technology at issue in the original dispute between Kodak, Apple, and RIM that is, as of 2012, pending before ITC. [ 211 ] In March 2012, bankruptcy court judge Allen Gropper , overseeing Kodak's restructuring, denied Apple's request to file a patent complaint with the ITC over some of Kodak's cameras, photo frames, and printers. [ 212 ] In July 2012, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that Kodak did not infringe on Apple's patent technology for digital cameras, although a few days earlier Kodak lost its case before the ITC against Apple and RIM; Kodak announced it would appeal that decision. [ 213 ] In the year before Apple and Samsung began suing each other on most continents, and while Apple and HTC were already embroiled in a patent fight, Motorola Mobility and Apple started a period of intense patent litigation. The Motorola-Apple patent imbroglio commenced with claims and cross-claims between the companies for patent infringement and encompassed multiple forums in multiple countries as each party sought friendly venues for litigating its respective claims; the fight also included administrative law rulings as well as ITC and European Commission involvement. [ 214 ] As of April 2012, the controversy centered on whether a FRAND license to a components manufacturer carries over to an equipment manufacturer incorporating the component into