Far from being the first time Time Warner Cable has upset its subscriber base, the Los Angeles city attorney's office is pulling a Dee Snider and refusing to take the carrier's lackluster service anymore. In a 25-page lawsuit, the city is alleging that the operator "caused major havoc and distress" two years ago when it "failed to live up to its part of the franchise cable agreement requiring that a company answer subscribers' calls within 30 seconds and begin repairs of service interruptions within 24 hours of notification in 90% of its calls for service." The suit claims that no more than 60% of customer calls were answered in time, and cable / internet service was said to be "so intermittent and inferior in quality that it was not much better than no service at all." Not surprisingly, TWC representatives chose not to comment on the whole ordeal, but the outfit could face civil penalties of tens of millions of crisp US dollars in the case. Should've picked up the phone, TWC -- it would've been easier than picking up this tab. [Disclosure: Engadget is part of the Time Warner family]

[Image courtesy of Web 2 Concepts, thanks Scott]

No, this isn't some horrific dream stuck on repeat. The legal quarrels between Nokia and Qualcomm are actually still ongoing, and while a US International Trade Commission judge has indeed issued an initial determination that favors Nokia, you can bet your bottom dollar that Qualcomm will be "petitioning the commission for a review." Nevertheless, judge Paul Luckern reportedly "found no infringement or violation by Nokia of the three asserted Qualcomm patents," which consequently led Nokia's CFO to proclaim that this was simply "another failed attempt by Qualcomm to mislead both Nokia and the telecommunications industry." Of course, we wouldn't recommend striking this battle off as complete -- after all, the determination now has to be forwarded on to the full commission for review, and it's not slated to dole out a final call until April.

[Via Yahoo / Reuters]

You don't have to look far outside of the Eastern District of Texas to find yourself a fresh patent infringement case, and sure enough, that's precisely where this one was filed. Getting dinged up today is none other than the Round Rock powerhouse and Motion Computing, both of which are being sued for so-called willful infringement on Typhoon Touch Technologies / Nova Mobility Systems touch panel patents. Apparently, the two defendants are being accused of profiting off of two particular patents without paying the plaintiffs their respective royalties, and the lawsuit is seeking to "enjoin Dell and Motion Computing from the continued violation of [the] patents" while also extracting a presumably hefty sum of cash. No specific products are blamed, but we're told that the patents cover technology used in tablet PCs, slate PCs, handheld PCs, UMPCs, PDAs and a host of other gear.

Although FiOS just celebrated its second birthday last month, the third year isn't exactly off to a sensational start. Reportedly, Digital Art Services, a New York-based advertising company, has slapped Verizon Communications with a lawsuit alleging that the firm "overstated subscribers to its fiber-optic service and charged inflated prices for advertisements there." Essentially, the plaintiff is suggesting that Verizon included "pending customers" in its public subscriber reports which were "false and inflated." Interestingly, a spokesperson for Verizon stated that while he had yet to see the lawsuit, it sounded like a "garden variety business dispute." Of note, Digital Art was informed that pending customers could be included "as they were usually converted to active subscribers within two weeks," but it found that many prospective buyers "waited up to 10 months for their service to become active."

As if the cutthroat price wars in the LCD space weren't demanding enough, Samsung is now being forced to attend to a lawsuit that Sharp just filed over LCD patent infringement. Reportedly, Sharp is seeking "compensation as well as the prohibition of sales of products that it alleges infringe five of its LCD patents, including one that relates to technology used to enhance display quality." The products in question include Samsung televisions and monitors as well as mobile handsets that feature Samsung's LCD modules. Unsurprisingly, Samsung refused to comment on pending litigation, but a Sharp spokeswoman went so far as to say that it had "been in talks with Samsung, but it appeared difficult to solve the matter through negotiations," which apparently led to a lawsuit being filed. So much for talking things out, eh?

Looks like the pockets of Qualcomm are going to be about $19.6 million lighter real soon, as a federal jury in Santa Ana, California returned verdicts that found "certain Qualcomm products" infringing on three patents owned by Broadcom Corporation. The lawsuit was originally filed way back in May of 2005 and alleged that five of its patents had been violated, but during the course of the trials, Broadcom ditched one of the claims while the court stayed the case with respect to a second. Notably, none of the patents that were infringed upon were "developed specifically in connection with cellular technology or standards," but the seemingly willful wrongdoing will indeed cost Qualcomm just shy of $20 million -- that is, until a trial judge mulls this thing over and determines if the firm should face any additional financial punishment "based on the finding of willfulness."

Those price fixing allegations that AMD and NVIDIA were facing late last year may have vanished from the forefront of your memory, but you can rest assured that the legal teams connected to the two are still workin' overtime to clean things up. Apparently, NVIDIA has been slapped with as many as 51 civil complaints over "price fixing and anti-competitive agreements, among other things," and on its March 16th filing with the SEC, the firm states that "42 civil complaints as of March 14 were filed against it on the same allegations." Notably, the outfit did state that the "lawsuits are putative class-actions," and unsurprisingly felt that they were all lacking merit and would be fought vigorously. Tsk, Tsk.

[Via Gearlog]

Tsk, tsk. Looks like Best Buy will indeed be paying up for the misdeeds involving that dodgy intranet we saw a few months back. Connecticut's attorney general announced a lawsuit against the big box retailer and accused it of "deceiving customers with in-store computer kiosks and overcharging them." Attorney General Richard Blumenthal was quoted as saying that the store "gave consumers the worst deal with a bait-and-switch-plus scheme luring consumers into stores with promised online discounts, only to charge higher in-store prices." The suit seeks "refunds for consumers, civil penalties, court costs, a ban on the practice, and other remedies," and while Best Buy spokespersons are vigorously denying the allegations, Connecticut's consumer protection commissioner even said that there was "certainly an element of deception here." Reportedly, the in-store kiosks were somehow an "alternate way to get information about products," but when that information ends up costing your customers more than they should be paying, we doubt the judge will look kindly upon it.

As if Sony's legal team hasn't dealt with enough this year already, they're getting dialed up yet again for alleged patent infringement, and this time the California-based Target Technology Company is the one pointing the finger. Apparently, the firm is suing several segments of Sony for "deliberately and willfully" infringing on a patent that Target was granted in 2006. The plaintiff claims that products "marketed under the Blu-ray name infringed on a patent for reflective layer materials in optical discs," and more explicitly, "specific types of silver-based alloys with the advantages (but not the price) of gold." The suit was actually filed as an "intellectual property" matter rather than one of chemical imbalances, and while Target Technology is purportedly seeking a "permanent injunction preventing Sony from violating its patent rights in the future, as well as damages with interest," we won't be surprised if a sizable check from Sony's wallet makes this all disappear.

[Via GameSpot, thanks Evan]

Apparently Transmeta isn't the only one that feels like they just give and give in this relationship. Intel's decided that Transmeta has swiped a few too many of its technologies, and is suing the struggling microprocessor company for patent infringement. Transmeta's infringement suit against Intel is still ongoing, claiming eleven of its patents are being stepped on by big bad Intel's Core, Core 2 and Pentium chips. Intel claims the "doctrine of unclean hands," basically a "they did it first!" sort of defense, and its also ratting on Transmeta for "inequitable conduct" for purported withholding of information by inventors during the patent application process. With Transmeta on its last legs, and fully transformed into an intellectual property-only company, perhaps Intel is hoping the law fees can wipe up the rest of Transmeta's capital, but we'd rather believe it's just back to playground tactics.

Lawsuits in the technology biz certainly aren't uncommon, and it looks like we may have one more significant ruling about to hit just shortly after CSIRO won its own landmark case. The US Supreme Court justices seem to be viewing earlier, lower cases with a hint of skepticism in regard to decisions that have previously worked to safeguard patented products. While the trial at hand concerns two brake manufacturers -- KSR International and rival Teleflex -- the stipulations could be far reaching; the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit previously ruled that KSR failed to prove that Teleflex (the accuser) "did not encounter teaching, suggestion, or motivation in developing the product." The generally ambiguous test is a thorn in the side of major technology companies getting slapped around by frivolous lawsuits, and Microsoft, IBM, and Cisco Systems have all made time to "submit briefs supporting KSR's stand." Still, the final decision isn't expected for quite some time, so sue-happy firms still have time to submit their counter-briefs, but folks like Vonage and TomTom (just to name a couple) would obviously (ahem) love a victory here.

[Via Slashdot]