litigation
Latest
TiVo sues Time Warner Cable, Motorola Mobility in fresh patent assault
Four days ago TiVo abandoned its protracted patent litigation against Microsoft and we sighed in relief at the idea that people were learning to just get along. Our respite was short lived, however, when the company revealed it was lobbing litigation-shaped grenades over the fence toward Motorola Mobility and Time Warner Cable. The lawsuit, filed in the Patent Troll haven of Texas' Eastern District, concerns patents 6,223,389, 7,529,465 and 6,792,195. The first of that trio is the contentious Time Warping patent that's been argued over so much we'd like to slice it in two, King Solomon style. Details beyond that are few and far between, but something tells us we'll be hearing more about the tiff in the future... whether we want to or not.
Oracle's final damage claim against Google well under $100 million
My, my, my, how the mighty have fallen. In this case, the mighty is the roughly $6 billion Oracle initially sought in its suit against Google. By September of last year that number had dropped to a comparatively paltry $2 billion, which was still too high for presiding Judge William Alsup. Now that has plummeted precipitously, with Oracle's new starting figure sitting at $32.3 million. Of course, the final total for the damages will likely be higher than that, but we'd be mighty shocked if the ultimate settlement was even close to $100 million. Google's own estimates put the valuation at between $37.5 million and $46.6 million -- a far cry from the $100 million starting point Alsup had suggested in July of last year. Now all that's left is for this sucker to actually go to trial. Hit up the source to read the full filing.
The Hague to Samsung: no injunction for 3G patent infringement if Apple's willing to FRAND license
Since it's been more than 24 hours since the last bit of news in the ongoing legal battle between Samsung and Apple, we figured you could do with another litigation revelation. Late last year, the Hague shot down Sammy's request to prevent iPads and iPhones from being sold in the Netherlands. Today, the Dutch court went a step further, telling the Korean company that it can't pursue any other injunctions based upon its FRAND 3G patents as long as Cupertino's willing to talk about licensing them. Not only that, it went on to hold that those patents don't apply in Sammy's case against the iPhone 4S due to the theory of patent exhaustion. The allegedly infringing bits in the handset are made by Qualcomm, who licensed the technology directly from Samsung -- granting Apple protection under the license as a third party beneficiary -- and Apple prevailed using arguments not unlike those it made in a suit it recently filed against Motorola. Score one more legal victory for Tim Cook and company, but as you already know, the war is far from over.
Apple simplifies its ITC suit against Samsung: drops one patent and several claims from two more
While there's been plenty of legal wrangling between Apple and Samsung in Federal courtrooms lately, it's been awhile since we've had news from the parties' parallel proceedings occurring in the ITC. No longer. Last week, Apple received a favorable outcome when the ITC issued its claim construction order, siding with Apple's interpretations of two patents -- for those who aren't familiar, claim construction is the process by which the judge determines the meaning of specific terms in the claims, and it often has great influence on findings of infringement (or non-infringement). The judge found in favor of Samsung regarding one patent in his claim construction order, however, and now Apple has dropped that patent from the proceedings, along with claims from two of its other patents as well. This latest legal maneuvering by Cupertino is pretty standard fare, as paring down the legal issues is something all courts encourage to make the adjudication process more efficient, and Apple is simply distilling its case down to its strongest arguments. Now that the claim construction's complete, next on the docket is the ITC's evidentiary hearing (read: trial) starting May 31st, and afterwards we'll finally get the ITC's decision. Stay tuned.
Judge says Apple can't pursue patent infringement case against Kodak
Apple was dealt a setback today in its efforts to prevent Kodak from selling up to $2.6 billion worth of digital imaging patents, with U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Allan Gropper ruling that it would be an "inappropriate way forward" to allow Apple to pursue patent litigation against the bankrupt company. For its part, Apple had argued that one of those patents -- concerning the ability to preview digital photos on an LCD screen -- was "misappropriated" from its own technology, and that Kodak therefore shouldn't be allowed to sell it off as part of the planned sale (something Kodak obviously disputes). On that point, the judge did agree that the matter should be resolved soon, just not in the manner in which Apple had been proceeding, further adding that he "would request that the parties report to me on their efforts to come up with a procedure that truly works."
Samsung files yet another lawsuit against Apple in South Korea
In the global courtroom conflict that threatens to outlast the Thirty-Years War, Samsung has commenced yet another lawsuit against Apple. Filed in a Seoul court, this particular litigation broadside alleges that Cupertino has infringed patents on the displaying of data, user interface and short text messages -- sigh.
Oracle drops patent from Google lawsuit, Google moves to strike Oracle's third damages report
After much sound and fury in its legal proceedings for IP infringement against Google, Oracle's claims continue to be whittled away. Judge Alsup has been on Oracle's case to downgrade its damages claims for months now, and on Friday, he got yet another reason to do so. Ellison's crew has finally withdrawn the last remaining claim of patent number 6,192,476 from the litigation -- the very same patent that had 17 of 21 claims wiped out earlier during a USPTO re-examination proceeding. Additionally, Google has filed a motion to strike Oracle's third damages report for, once again, artificially inflating the monetary damages in its expert report. No one can say for sure how the judge will rule on that motion, but given that Oracle's got less IP than ever with which to allege infringement, it seems likely that the Court will send it back to the damages drawing board.
Apple v. Samsung: Cupertino's latest complaint alleges 17 devices infringe 8 of its patents
We were waiting for the details of Apple's new lawsuit in its global battle against Samsung, and now that the court has posted the complaint, we have them. These fresh allegations claim Sammy has... you guessed it, infringed upon Apple's intellectual property. Turns out, there are eight patents at issue, with four of the patents in question having been granted since the last time Apple filed suit against the Korean firm. Among these are patents for missed call management, slide-to-unlock and data-syncing technology. Apple isn't just targeting the Galaxy Nexus with this suit as previously thought, either. In fact, at least 17 devices are alleged to have infringed, including all the US Galaxy S II variants, both the Galaxy Player 4.0 and 5.0, the Galaxy Tab 7.0 Plus and Galaxy Tab 8.9. So, should the Northern District of California decide to grant Apple's request for a preliminary injunction, a hefty chunk of Samsung's mobile products will be barred from store shelves here in the States. It'll be a bit before we hear Sammy's side of the story, but for now, you can see all of Apple's latest legal arguments below.
Ask Massively: Thieving on the fast track edition
One of our readers was kind enough to point us to two sites that, once again, were stealing our posts without crediting our authors or anything like that. (I don't mean "this post looks suspiciously similar"; I mean abusing copy and paste.) Unfortunately, while we're aware of these things, there's not a whole lot we can do other than request that the sites get taken down. Sometimes it works, and sometimes it doesn't, but it's all we can do. I guess it's nice to be good enough that your work is worth stealing without credit? That's something. This week's installment of Ask Massively isn't going to focus on that, however. Instead, we're going to focus on the recent spate of MMO litigation and the potential for a boxed RIFT expansion. If you have a question you'd like to see answered in a future installment of Ask Massively, mail it along to ask@massively.com or leave a comment in the field below. Questions may be edited slightly for clarity and/or brevity.
French court fines Google France 500,000 euros for gratis Maps
A Parisian commercial court has upheld a lower court's ruling against Google France, ordering the company to pay a fine of €500,000 for giving away its maps services. The plaintiff, Bottin Cartographes, claims that Google leveraged the market share of its Maps platform -- and the fact that it's free -- to undercut and stifle competition attempting to sell their topographical wares to businesses. "We proved the illegality of [Google's] strategy," said Bottin's counsel, noting that this was the first time Google has been convicted of malfeasance for this particular piece of software in the country. A representative from the search giant said it plans to appeal the decision, and reiterated the company's belief that competition exists in the space. Personally, we think the court got it right. Why should people get an awesome product for free when they can pay for an inferior one, right?
German court denies Apple request for preliminary ban on Galaxy Tab 10.1N and Galaxy Nexus sales
You win some, and you lose some, right, Apple? Hot on the heels of its latest victory in Dusseldorf keeping the Galaxy Tab 10.1 out of Deutschland, Apple was denied similar satisfaction in Munich today. Bloomberg's reporting that the Munich Regional Court denied Cupertino's motion to exclude Sammy's 10.1N and Galaxy Nexus from store shelves due to infringement of a touchscreen patent granted last year. While details of the ruling itself are scarce, the judge apparently rejected Apple's overtures because the patent in question is likely invalid due to the market presence of the same technology before the patent was granted. Of course, the 10.1N's not out of the woods yet, as next week the aforementioned court in Dusseldorf will pass judgment on Sammy's reworked slate. So, pop some popcorn folks, these legal fireworks are far from over.
Microsoft, Alcatel-Lucent settle decade-old patent spat
It's no secret that Alcatel-Lucent and Microsoft have a long and somewhat litigious relationship, but today the two companies are letting bygones be bygones. CNET is reporting that A-L and MS have reached a "confidential settlement" in a patent dispute dating all the way back to 2002. Originally targeting Dell and Gateway, then-Alcatel alleged that information entry techniques used by Microsoft Outlook, Microsoft Money and Windows Mobile violated a portion of its patent portfolio. Microsoft stepped in on the OEMs' behalf, and in a 2008 ruling, a court granted the newly formed Alcatel-Lucent over $350 million in damages -- subsequently reduced to $70 million in July of 2011 and further reduced to just over $23 million upon appeal. The final settlement is, as we said, unknown, but a Microsoft spokesperson was quoted as saying the deal is "to the satisfaction of both parties." No word on when the two will file their next multimillion dollar blockbuster lawsuit, but apparently both counsels will be sleeping easy tonight.
Kodak says smile Samsung, you're being sued for infringing five digital imaging patents
Kodak's been in a bit of a financial bind lately, and has been exploring various options to maximize profitability and get its balance sheet back in the black. After recently filing actions against Apple and HTC in the International Trade Commission, Kodak's legal team now has Samsung in its sights. According to a press release, Kodak has filed a federal suit in the Western District of New York alleging that several Sammy slates are infringing five of Kodak's digital imaging patents. The patents in question claim various image capture and transmission technologies, from taking and sending images via email to transferring digital pictures over a cellular network. We haven't gotten a peek at the complaint just yet to see which devices allegedly run afoul of Kodak's IP, but you can find the five patents in question in the PR after the break.
Microsoft and Barnes & Noble agree to eliminate one patent and multiple claims from ITC infringement case
Patent lawsuits start out the same way: company X hurls a slew of infringement allegations at company Y, the court demands that the fat be trimmed, and the case's scope is distilled so that only the strongest claims remain. Microsoft's ITC patent case against Barnes & Noble is currently in the midst of this streamlining process, and the parties have agreed to drop claims from four of the patents at issue and eliminated one patent from the proceedings altogether. A full accounting of all the bits of IP that have been eliminated can be found at the source link below.
Samsung's attempted iPhone 4S block in Italy denied, already missed its French connection
Last October, Samsung made a new attack in its ongoing patent war with Apple, filing motions to block sales of the iPhone 4S in both France and Italy, alleging infringements of patents relating to WCDMA standards for 3G-enabled devices. About a month ago the French motion was denied and now we're learning that an Judge Marina Tavassi of the Italian Tribunale di Milano has said "negato" as well. What's next? We hear Brazil is lovely this time of year...
Elan: 'Apple's paying us $5 million for multitouch patents'
Remember the longstanding patent punch-up 'twixt Cupertino and Elan Microelectronics? No? Well, Taiwan's Elan said that Apple infringed two of its multitouch patents, which the ITC disagreed with -- the judge stating he found no infringement and therefore no cause for an outright ban on sales of iDevices. Now, in a rather strange twist, and perhaps just to extricate itself from the case completely, The Haus of Tim is paying $5 million to Elan in an out-of-court settlement. Aside from the relatively paltry sum of cash, the settlement also allows the companies to cross-license each other's relevant patents -- a deal which might arguably serve Elan better than it serves Apple.
2009 lawsuit against Final Fantasy XI dismissed
If you're a longtime player of Final Fantasy XI, you might have some problems with the way that the game's been handled over the years. Those problems are usually complaints about issues such as balance or the way that the game has handled updates, though, and they certainly don't extend to legal action. Yet back in 2009, Esther Leong filed suit against Square-Enix for fraudulent practices and deceptive advertising because of the game's monthly subscription fee. The claim was seeking over five million dollars in damages on behalf of all Final Fantasy XI players, which is probably a bit more than you seek when you feel your White Mage is underpowered. The 9th District Circuit Court of Appeals has officially dismissed the case, ending its progression for good and establishing a precedent that most likely won't find itself under heavy contest. A deputy general counsel for Square-Enix had called the suit "baseless" when it was first filed, due in no small part to the game's transparent statement that players would be required to pay a subscription fee.
Samsung, Sharp, Hitachi and others settle LCD panel price fixing consumer class action for $539 million
'Tis the season for settling antitrust lawsuits, folks. Earlier this month, Sharp, Samsung, Hitachi and other LCD panel producers settled out their price fixing lawsuit with direct purchasers (read: TV and computer monitor manufacturers) for $388 million. So the story goes, the companies colluded to assure higher prices on LCDs sold between 1999 and 2006. Now, those same seven companies have settled up with indirect LCD purchasers -- aka the folks buying TVs and PCs -- to the tune of $539 million. Samsung, Sharp and Chimei are dishing out the lion's share of settlement dollars at $240 million, $115 million and $110 million, respectively, with the other companies kicking in between $2.8 and $39 million for their (allegedly) anti-competitive ways. Of course, the settlement isn't final until it receives the court's blessing, but you can see what the judge will likely be rubber-stamping at the source below.
Apple alleges more Samsung IP infringement in Oz over copycat tablet and phone cases
In case you hadn't heard, relations between Apple and Samsung aren't exactly peachy keen these days. Their global legal conflict has been particularly fierce in the land down under, and it seems Apple just poured a bit more gas on the fire by alleging that Sammy's infringing its designs for tablet and phone cases. According to Bloomberg, Cupertino informed the Australian court of its latest legal allegations in a hearing in which it was attempting to push back the case's March trial date. Apple's already issued a notice of this newly alleged infringement to the Korean company, and a statement of its new claims is forthcoming, so details of the infringed-upon IP aren't yet available. What we do know is that it looks like Samsung's attorneys in Oz just got a lot more work to do over the holidays.
Federal judge dismisses class-action suit against Sony, 'Other OS' feature remains dormant
Last year, a group of disgruntled gamers filed a class-action lawsuit against Sony over its decision to remove the "Install Other OS" feature from its PS3 firmware. Last week, though, their case was dismissed by US District Judge Richard Seeborg, on the grounds that the plaintiffs failed to actually state a claim. In a ruling issued Thursday, Seeborg said he sympathized with the gamers' gripes, but ultimately determined that they had failed to demonstrate any legal entitlement to the feature, thereby neutering their arguments. "The dismay and frustration at least some PS3 owners likely experienced when Sony made the decision to limit access to the PSN service to those who were [un]willing to disable the Other OS feature on their machines was no doubt genuine and understandable," Seeborg wrote. "As a matter of providing customer satisfaction and building loyalty, it may have been questionable." He went on, however, to point out that the users "have failed to allege facts or articulate a theory on which Sony may be held liable" post-PS3 purchase, effectively ending the litigation.
