patent troll
Latest
Apple ordered to pay $300 million in LTE patent dispute
Apple has been ordered to pay $300 million to Optis for allegedly violating patents for LTE cellular tech.
Apple to pay $308.5 million for allegedly violating a DRM patent
Apple has been ordered to pay $308.5 million in a lawsuit alleging that the copyright protection in the App Store and Music violates PMC's patents.
Apple gets its WiLan patent payout reduced to $85.2 million
Apple won't have to pay WiLan as much as expected for alleged patent violations. A retrial jury has reduced the damages from WiLan's lawsuit from the original $145.1 million (determined in 2018) down to slightly over $85.2 million. That's still no small sum, but it could be considered a small victory. The judge in the original case had effectively ordered a retrial after agreeing with Apple that WiLan had used a flawed method to calculate the size of the damages -- WiLan had to either agree to a new trial or risk walking away with 'just' $10 million.
Kiss lip lawsuit against Activision goodbye
Activision Blizzard has announced that the United States District Court, Central District of California, has invalidated all patents claims made by McRO Inc., which conducts its business as a production and effects company called Planet Blue. The claims sought financial restitution against Activision Blizzard for the use of methods related to "automatically animating lip synchronization and facial expressions of 3D characters" that McRO had patented. Activision Blizzard filed a motion to dismiss the claim and to strip McRO of the patents, saying the patents "were invalid because they claimed well-known and long-practiced lip-synching methods implemented on a computer."
Meet the company that is dangerously close to collecting 1% of Apple's iPhone and iPad revenue
If you've never heard the name VirnetX that's OK, since the company doesn't really make anything you use on a daily basis, but Apple knows the name all too well. The two companies have been entangled in a long legal battle over a handful of patents applying to Apple products like FaceTime, and you guessed it, VirnetX is out for cash and not much else. Apple is no stranger to patent trolling, but where so many have failed, VirnetX has succeeded, and is creeping ever closer to scoring a huge payday off of Apple's iPhone and iPad sales. VirnetX bills itself as an "end-user-focused company," that values integrity and security above all else. It does this -- it seems -- by creating licensing agreements to rake in cash and waging legal wars against anyone who it feels has infringed upon its holdings. The company has had some bad beats in its fight against other large tech companies, including losing its infringement case against Cisco in March of 2013. You can see the effect this ruling had on the company's stock price (it's the massive drop which cut its value in half). But VirnetX is having much better luck against Apple. I'll save you most of the complicated details regarding the case and try to put it in simpler terms: VirnetX owns several patents on network protocols which the company argues are being used by Apple without royalties. In 2013, a jury agreed and ordered Apple to pay $368 million. Apple then did some behind-the-scenes tweaking to try to skirt the patents, but earlier this year a judge determined Apple was still infringing and ordered that Apple fork over an ongoing royalty of 0.98% of iPhone and iPad revenue. Running out of options, Apple then leaned on RPX, a company that buys up patents to aid large companies in defense of patent trolls, for help. RPX, operating as an entity separate from Apple, filed petitions to have the patents reviewed and hopefully invalidated as they apply to the lawsuit. The U.S. patent office found that Apple was really the one pulling the strings on RPX's request and, just last week, had it thrown out entirely. VirnetX hailed this as justice being served. This not only makes Apple look a bit desperate, but it also puts VirnetX one big step closer to collecting on nearly 1% of the sales of Apple's most popular devices. Apple's next move is unclear, as the company has been barred from filing additional reviews on the grounds that it already had the opportunity to make its case, and with one of the biggest names in anti-patent-trolling, RPX, also dismissed, VirnetX is clearly winning this fight.
Blizzard wins court case over patent troll Worlds Inc.
A Boston court ruled in Blizzard's favor last week against a lawsuit brought on by Worlds Inc. (aka Worlds.com) that claimed the studio infringed on four patents that Worlds Inc. made in the mid-1990s. This ruling is the latest development in a case that spans back to 2012, when Worlds Inc. filed the suit. The company claimed that Blizzard violated patents that showed the invention of "a method for enabling a first user to interact with other users in a virtual space," among other items. A U.S. District Judge ruled that these patents are invalid because those inventions already existed prior to the filings. This isn't Worlds' first attempt to sue an MMO studio over these allegations, as it went after (and lost to) NCsoft and Linden Lab several years ago.
Blizzard scores a victory against patent troll Worlds, Inc.
Activision Blizzard has won a victory over Worlds Inc, which has been leveraging its patents on basic virtual world principles -- like the ability to chat with other users in a virtual environment -- to sue MMO companies like Blizzard and Second Life makers Linden Labs. Patent trolling can be big business and, indeed, seems to be the primary business that Worlds Inc is in these days. However, they may be running out of luck in this case, as the latest ruling suggests the patents are invalid because they describe things already in public use before they were filed. However, this ruling is certainly not the end of the ongoing legal drama involving Worlds, which has lauded the ruling as a clear victory for itself. But with the Supreme Court currently considering whether to take stronger action against patent trolls, which may make it easier for sued companies to recover legal fees from patent trolls (and thus deter these sorts of lawsuits), it may be harder for Worlds to find traction on such lawsuits in the future. We'll have to keep watching to see just what happens between Activision Blizzard and Worlds, but it seems unlikely that they'll manage to recover from this ruling. If you want all the details, check out the writeup on Gigaom or, if you're fluent in legalese, read the decision yourself.
Apple and Google band together and ask Supreme Court to help keep patent trolls at bay
Bloomberg reports that Apple, Google and 13 other companies are teaming up in an effort to convince the Supreme Court to make it easier to recoup attorneys fees stemming from frivolous patent suits. With more than US$140 billion in the bank, Apple is naturally an attractive target for patent trolls looking to make a quick buck. It therefore shouldn't come as much of a surprise that Apple is the most sued tech company on the planet. Indeed, Apple since 2009 has been hit with nearly 190 lawsuits from non-practicing entities alone. This February, the Supreme Court will hear two cases that center on a defendant's ability to recoup legal costs in patent suits. As it stands now, a defendant can successfully recoup its legal costs only when a case is found to have been "baseless' and "filed in bad faith." Apple and co. believe that the bar should be a tad lower. Apple told the justices that the company faces 228 unresolved patent claims and employs two attorneys just to respond to letters that demand royalties. The iPad maker, based in Cupertino, California, says it has been sued 92 times by patent-assertion entities in the last three years, settling 51 cases, with most of the rest pending. "Apple has rarely lost on the merits," the company said in court papers. "But victory figures as small consolation because in every one of these cases, Apple has been forced to bear its legal fees." And speaking of patent suits, FOSS Patents reported earlier today that Apple is being sued by a German patent firm called IPCom over a standard-essential patent relating to managing "access to overloaded wireless communication channels by handsets." The suit is seeking damages of $2.12 billion.
EU regulator warns Nokia against starting a new career as a patent troll
Nokia, by which we mean the parts of the Finnish phone maker that Microsoft hasn't absorbed into its mobile business, has been warned off using its leftover patents to become a troll. According to the AP, EU Commissioner VP Joaquin Almunia said he'd keep an eye on Nokia in case it attempted to "extract higher returns" from its well-stocked patent portfolio. While it has successfully negotiated patent deals in the past and has licensed its intellectual property to Microsoft as part of the takeover, the Commission is likely focusing on Nokia's standard-essential mobile patents. Unlike the recent injunction on UK HTC One mini sales, Nokia could choose to get litigious with its FRAND patents instead of fairly licensing them, giving it an "illegal advantage" over its rivals. Although nothing suggests it intends to do so, both Samsung and Motorola have taken that approach in recent years and are now waiting to see if they'll pay the price.
Judge tosses out Apple's motion regarding Lodsys
Apple licensed US Patent #772,078 from original owner Intellectual Ventures to allow for in-app purchases of iOS apps. The patent, now owned by Lodsys, covers "Methods and systems for gathering information from units of a commodity across a network." Lodsys started suing iOS developers for patent infringement and Apple filed a motion to intervene in patent infringement lawsuits in 2011. Patent trolls -- also known as Patent Assertion Entities ("PAEs") -- are "firms with a business model based primarily on purchasing patents and then attempting to generate revenue by asserting the intellectual property against persons who are already practicing the patented technologies," according to the FTC. According to Joe Mullin from Ars Technica, "Lodsys became one of the most-scorned patent holders in 2011, by making seemingly small cash demands (just 0.575 percent of your revenue, please!) against small app makers, who it said were infringing its patents that cover in-app purchasing and upgrades." Ars Technica further states that, "the East Texas judge [US District Judge Rodney Gilstrap] overseeing Lodsys' systematic patent attack on app developers has refused to even consider Apple's motion." This means that Lodsys is now free to "threaten developers for months, and perhaps even years, to come," according to Mullin. An amicus brief, which is loosely an offer to assist in understanding an issue being handled by a court by parties with a strong interest in the issue (but not part of the court action) was filed by the App Developers Alliance and the Electronic Frontier Foundation. The brief states: "Lodsys's pattern of sending out demand letters, suing a seemingly random sampling of app developers and then settling with those app developers, promises that those developers' claims of a right to use the technology in question will never be heard. The resulting uncertainty leaves developers in limbo. In fact, there have been reports that app developers are indeed pulling apps out of the US markets entirely. Charles Arthur, App Developers Withdraw from US as Patent Fears Reach 'Tipping Point', The Guardian (July 15, 2011)." Mullin recounts some of the pending suits and companies involved, and provides more detail on how those companies are handling the cases. "Apple's argument that the Lodsys patents are already paid for could have been a clean and effective way to shut down much of the Lodsys patent campaign." It looks like that isn't going to happen anytime soon. Related Stories FTC publishes a long list of questions it wants to ask "patent trolls", Ars Technica, 9/27/13. FTC Seeks to Examine Patent Assertion Entities and Their Impact on Innovation, Competition, FTC, 9/27/13. Lodsys offers to settle patent dispute with fortunate developer, TUAW, 8/8/13. Apple allowed to intervene in Lodsys patent case, TUAW, 4/13/12. Lodsys now going after apps with More Apps buttons, TUAW, 7/13/11. Apple files motion to intervene in Lodsys suit, TUAW, 6/10/11.
Apple sued over Find my iPhone
Well this is certainly a fitting story given a recent report that Apple remains the top target for patent trolls. GigaOM is reporting that a nonpracticing entity based out of Texas is suing Apple, alleging that services such as Find my Friends and Find my iPhone infringe upon their patents. The company in question is called Remote Locator, and per usual, information regarding ownership interests in the company and the patent itself are hard to come by. Notably, Apple isn't the only one being targeted by this particular patent as several other suits have been filed against Google and carriers as well. The invention itself is US Patent 5548637, which covers a method for "locating personnel and objects in response to telephone inquiries," and describes a system for using infrared transmitters to route calls to individuals or objects in large buildings like a hospital. Remote Locator is requesting a jury trial, and with respect to damages, is seeking an injunction and payment for past infringement. Patent trolls in recent years have become an increasing nuisance in the tech sphere, and with Apple holding billions upon billions in the bank, it makes sense why they're often targeted. Unfortunately, though, patent trolls have also taken to suing and arguably shaking down small-time developers who often lack the resources to adequately defend themselves against what are often frivolous lawsuits. The flurry of lawsuits filed by Lodsys in recent memory serves as a stark example. Thankfully, the Obama administration has taken notice of the patent troll phenomenon and has proposed some new guidelines that will hopefully serve to lessen the impact of patent trolls. All that said, we'll keep an eye on this case and see how Apple responds.
Patent troll strikes small indie MMO devs
Late last year, Treehouse Avatar Technologies filed a still-pending lawsuit against Turbine for copyright infringement claims surrounding the use of "character-enabled" and "character-attribute data linked with one or more character data." Well, they're back and claiming patent infringement on three more studios. This time, though, the studios are all small indie developers including Starpires developer Bad Pug Games, Minions of Mirth developer Prairie Games, Aces High developer HiTech Creations, and A Tale in the Desert developer eGenesis. The patent infringement claim centers on U.S Patent 8,180,858: "Methods for Presenting Data Over a Network Based Network User Choices and Collecting Real-time Data Related to Said Choices," which is the same patent infringement claimed against Turbine. Each letter looks to have been sent out on or around July 1st of this year. No word yet on any legal developments beyond these letters. [Thanks for the tip, Avaloner81!]
Patent challengers must prove they have a 'significant presence' in the US: ITC
The International Trade Commission has become increasingly tired of all the patent mischief it's forced to deal with, just as we've become tired of reporting on it. That's why its latest defense against time-wasters could potentially be a very good idea. According to Reuters, the ITC will soon demand upfront proof that the complainant in a patent case has a "significant presence in the United States" and isn't merely a fly-by-night outfit created for the purpose of pursuing litigation. The new rule has already been trialed in a pilot program, and Google, Intel, HP and others have voiced their support. It can't fix everything, of course, since major companies will still be able to game the system to hamper their rivals, but with the FTC and the White House also taking steps to subject "patent-assertion entities" to greater scrutiny, it feels like the wheels of government may be starting to catch up with the trolls.
FTC planning to take on patent trolls, hopes to reduce frivolous lawsuits
Sick of endless patent wars yet? According to the New York Times, so is the Federal Trade Commission. Referencing the usual persons briefed on the matter, the NYT reports that FTC chairwoman Edith Ramirez is preparing to propose an inquiry that will put patent-assertion entities -- companies that exist solely to buy and collect royalties on patents -- under federal scrutiny. If approved, patent trolls that catch the FTC's attention will need to detail how they operate and if their legal proceeds pay out to the original patent owner. The chairwoman is expected to explain the proposal in more detail at a patent law workshop later this week. According to the NYT, Ramirez doesn't have any specific company in mind, but aims to investigate companies that might hamper innovation. With any luck, the inquiry will help curb spurious litigation and rampant patent trolling -- something most of us can probably get behind.
Obama to propose plan targeting Patent Trolls
With well over $100 billion in the bank, it's no great surprise that Apple, more than any other company on the planet, finds itself on the receiving end of lawsuits initiated by patent trolls. In 2012 alone, Apple was hit with 44 lawsuits from patent trolls, otherwise known as non-practicing entities (NPE). Seemingly, barely a week goes by without news of an obscure and often shady company taking Apple to court for allegedly infringing upon some questionable patent that was acquired second or third hand. While many topics in the tech world are often the cause of intense and passionate debate, the one issue that seemingly everyone can agree upon is that patent trolls are nothing more than poisonous entities looking to make a quick buck by piggybacking off of the success of others. Lodsys, for example, comes to mind. All that said, there may be good news on the horizon. The Wall Street Journal is reporting that President Barack Obama on Tuesday will announce a new plan intent on minimizing the prevalence and impact of lawsuits brought forth by patent trolls. All told, Obama's plan includes five executive actions and seven legislative recommendations. Mr. Obama's actions, which include measures he wants Congress to consider, are intended to target firms that have forced technology companies, financial institutions and others into costly litigation to protect their products. These patent-holding firms amass portfolios of patents more to pursue licensing fees than to build new products. ... To help deter questionable lawsuits, the Obama administration plans to, among other things, direct the Patent and Trademark Office to start a rule-making process aimed at requiring patent holders to disclose the owner of a patent, according to senior Obama administration officials. Businesses sometimes are sued by shell companies and don't always know who actually owns the patent they are being accused of infringing, and whether the firm holds other relevant patents. Obama's plan will also seek to pass legislation which would slap patent trolls with sanctions when they initiate lawsuits which are found to be abusive. To his credit, Obama appears to appreciate the threat patent trolls can have on the innovative process and, by extension, the American economy. Back in February, for instance, he remarked that patent trolls exist solely to "leverage and hijack somebody else's idea and see if they can extort some money out of them." Political leanings aside, I imagine that that's a sentiment most people can get behind. What's more, Obama will reportedly recommend that the USPTO to take a more discerning look at overly broad technology patents insofar as they are typically the type of patents wielded by patent trolls. After all, if conveniently vague and seemingly useless patent applications aren't granted in the first place, patent trolls won't have any patents to pester other companies with to begin with. Lastly, the Journal notes that Obama's plan will also seek to limit the extent to which companies can utilize the International Trade Commission (ITC) to seek import bans against competing products. As it stands now, Apple has a few cases of its own pending at the ITC.
Lawyer at Apple law firm started planning patent attack just after iPhone introduction
Ars Technica has a fascinating story about a lawyer for one of Apple's hired law firms and his close relationship with a patent company that sued the Cupertino company for infringement. This tale of legal intrigue revolves around lawyer John McAleese who worked for Morgan, Lewis & Bockius. At the same time his law firm was working with Apple, he was helping his wife, Jennifer McAleese, launch a patent company, FlatWorld Interactives, that targeted Apple and its iPhone. This conflict of interest dates back to 2007, when the original iPhone was released. FlatWorld Interactives courted known patent trolls and Apple competitors, suggesting their touchscreen patent could help these companies sue Apple. To Google, Jennifer McAleese wrote: The patent link below may be of interest to Google regarding Apple's swiping mechanism. Our inventor, Slavko Milekic was granted this patent in 2005. In 2007, we placed the patent in reissue to tailor it more closely to iPhone claims. We have been told by many law firms that the patent is extremely valuable even without the reissue possibilities... If you are interested in discussing the patent please let us know. I think it could be an important asset for your ongoing 'talks' with Apple. Flatworld Interactives sued Apple in 2012, but John McAleese's role as both a lawyer for an Apple law firm and an adviser to a patent troll was not known until this year. Not surprisingly, Apple is using this potential conflict of interest in its case against Flatworld Interactives. You can read more about McAleese and his wife's patent troll startup in the Ars Technica article.
Patent troll Lodsys sues Gameloft, Disney and more for using in-app purchases
A company named Lodsys has filed suit against a number of mobile game developers, including Gameloft, Gamevil, and Disney, claiming that they're infringing on patents describing the technology behind in-app purchases. Lodsys is well known for its patent battles, previously filing suits against a number of smaller iOS developers, which forced Apple to get involved to say that it had already licensed Lodsys' patents and any other claims were superfluous. That case is scheduled to go to trial later this year.The new lawsuits all name one specific title from each company: Gameloft is targeted for the in-app purchases in Real Soccer 2012, and Disney's suit mentions Where's My Water? [pictured]. The Electronic Frontier Foundation has also posted about the lawsuits, calling Lodsys a "patent troll" and asking for legal help to fight the company.
Lodsys: 150 iOS developers give in to patent demands
Lodsys filed what many are calling a "patent troll" lawsuit against a number of smaller iOS developers last year, claiming that while Apple may have licensed its in-app purchase technology patents for iOS, individual developers have not, and should be held accountable for using it. Despite the fact that this seems patently absurd (pun intended), Lodsys claims that over 150 developers have licensed the technology for themselves, with the majority of them actually doing so "outside of the litigation process." The exact charges of licensing the tech aren't known, but it's rumored to be around 2.5 percent of whatever revenues are earned with in-app purchases. In other words, over 150 of the targeted developers have decided to pay licensing fees to Lodsys, rather than face the threats of legal action or further fines. Lodsys originally offered $1,000 to any developers it said had been wrongly targeted by the lawsuit, but of course that would be after costly court action due to the legal challenges. It's possible that these developers simply decided it wasn't worth the trouble fighting for their cause. Apple promised to assist these developers in court, and tried to make the case that its own licensing payment covers third-party developers. But Lodsys says separately that the issue is still "unresolved and clearly contested." Lodsys seems dedicated to going after smaller developers who lack the huge legal or monetary resources that Apple itself can use, and thus can be more easily threatened into paying out licensing fees rather than face an expensive court battle. [via GigaOm]
Ameranth claims Apple's Passbook violates reservation patents
In the latest in patent infringing suits against Apple, iOS 6's Passbook is the target. Apple Insider reports that Ameranth, which produces poker and restaurant software, claims that the ability to store movie and airline tickets and hotel reservations in Passbook infringes on patents that the company has filed between 1999 and 2005. GigaOM points out that Ameranth has filed similar suits against other companies this summer, and VentureBeat adds that Microsoft and Motorola hold a stake in the company. Ameranth has a history of mostly focusing on enforcing its patents, but with actual products and that financial stake under its belt, they might be a bit more than an ordinary patent troll.
Apple, Google sued by mobile web pioneer
A pioneer in the field of mobile browsing has now set its sights on Google and Apple with a brand new patent lawsuit. A company called Unwired Planet, which used to be known as OpenWave (and helped to create the original mobile browser protocol known as WAP) has filed a patent infringement lawsuit against both Apple and Google, claiming it has patents related to their cloud messaging, content and mobile advertising applications. Unwired Planet started to transition away from actual mobile browsing last year, and is now basically a bundle of patents that the company is trying to "maximize shareholder value" with. Of course, the courts will have to figure this one out, but it seems like Unwired is grabbing at straws here, hoping that one of their patents actually does apply so they can leech some licensing fees off of Google or Apple. Yes, if they did the work, they should reap the rewards, but this just smacks of desperation to me. Depending on what Unwired is actually asking for, they may even just be hoping that Apple or Google would rather pay out than worry about what happens in court. We'll see.
