infringement
Latest
World of Tanks vs. Project Tank: Is there IP infringement?
Browser-based Project Tank from Gamebox is under fire this week from the makers of World of Tanks for alleged copyright infringement. Beginning with a report to Facebook regarding the Project Tank FB page (which is where the game is playable), Wargaming is also looking to shut down the game itself, citing intellectual property violations. Gamebox is currently looking to reinstate its Facebook page while fighting the accusations. In an official statement released by Gamebox, the studio claims that, while they are fans of World of Tanks, no ill intention is there. "We sincerely hope Wargaming not to continuously consider us as a 'threat' to its user group, since PT and WOT are different in many ways and don't compete with each other at any platform," the statement says. We've included gameplay videos from both games just after the cut below so you can judge for yourself if you think this IP dispute is warranted or not. [Source: Gamebox press release and several tipsters]
ITC initial determination finds Microsoft doesn't infringe Motorola peer-to-peer wireless patent
Microsoft and Motorola's spat in the International Trade Commission started way back in 2010, but it looks like the case may be finally drawing to a conclusion after an initial ruling in Moto's favor was remanded for a second look. Reuters reports that on remand, the presiding administrative law judge reversed his stance in a new initial determination, clearing Microsoft of the remaining infringement charge for patent number 6,069,896 on wireless peer-to-peer technology. In response to this bit of good news, Microsoft VP Corporate VP and deputy general counsel had this to say: We are pleased with the Administrative Law Judge's finding that Microsoft did not violate Motorola's patent and are confident that this determination will be affirmed by the Commission. Back in October of last year, Motorola dropped the two WiFi-related patents it had asserted against Microsoft, and in January of 2013 it dropped both of its H.264 related patents from the ITC proceeding. With this latest ruling, it looks like Microsoft will escape from the ITC scott free, though it's not out of the woods yet, as the final call from the full commission won't occur until July. And, of course, Motorola can always take things to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit should it choose to do so. Isn't the system of endless appeals that is the United States judicial system wonderful?
LG suspects Samsung of infringing its eye-tracking patents with the Galaxy S 4
Samsung's Galaxy S 4 isn't even available yet, but already it's being eyed for possible patent infringement. According to a report from Korea's Yonhap News, LG suspects the S 4 might violate eye-tracking patents used in the Optimus G Pro. At the crux of this squabble is Samsung's Smart Pause feature, which LG finds similar to its Smart Video technology. Chiefly, LG is focusing on a patent it applied for in 2009, though the company also plans to investigate whether Samsung infringed other eye-tracking patents dating back to 2005. So far, of course, Samsung has denied any wrongdoing, saying its eye-tracking tech is implemented differently and is based on proprietary technology. Given that the phone isn't even out yet, we'll leave it to LG to do its due diligence before accusing Samsung in court.
Nintendo slapped with $30.2 million in damages for infringing glasses-free 3D patent
In 2011, former Sony employee Seijiro Tomita launched a suit against Nintendo, claiming the 3DS infringed on a patent he holds to display 3D visuals without glasses. Today, a federal court in New York decided to award Tomita with $30.2 million in damages for Iwata and Co.'s infringement. The house that Mario built unsuccessfully argued that it didn't rely on key parts of the patent, and that Tomita was just one of several folks it met with when it was looking into 3D tech in 2003. Nintendo's pockets are certainly deep enough to handle the sting, but we can't imagine it's a welcomed loss with sales forecasts taking dips.
RIAA claims Google's anti-piracy downranking doesn't work
Google offered an olive branch to content producers when it promised to downrank pirate sites in its search results last summer. Really, the RIAA was looking for the whole tree; it just published a report claiming that Google's technique hasn't had any tangible impact. The agency argues that the millions of takedown requests didn't lead to "significant" drops in rank for habitual violators. It further contends that many legitimate music sites only showed up in the top ten for about half of the searches, and were often kicked down the ladder by their bootleg counterparts. We're reaching out to Google to get its side of the story, but the RIAA isn't quite as patient: it's demanding that Google "immediately" change the results and volunteers its help. While that's a step forward from the music group's previous accusatory stance, it doesn't quite represent a two-way conversation on anti-piracy measures.
Judge Koh: Samsung did not willingly infringe Apple's patents
Judge Lucy Koh closed a chapter in the ongoing litigation between Apple and Samsung by issuing three orders in the case. These rulings pave the way for an appeal. According to a report in Ars Technica, Koh determined that Samsung's infringement was not willful and ruled that damage awards won't be tripled. The judge sided with Samsung, which argued that it didn't believe it was in the wrong. Koh also shut down Samsung's attempts to declare Apple's design patents invalid and didn't agree with Samsung's assertion that the trial was "manifestly unfair." Koh also denied Apple's request for additional damages. You can read a full analysis of the orders on Ars Technica's website.
Apple, Amazon ordered to settle 'app store' suit
Since March 2011, Apple has been battling Amazon in court over the use of the name App Store. In an order handed down yesterday, Judge Elizabeth LaPorte told the two companies that she wants them to sit down and negotiate a settlement. The pair are scheduled to meet on March 21st, says a report in iPodNN. Apple filed its App Store trademark infringement lawsuit against Amazon shortly after the retail giant launched its app store for Android devices. Apple claimed Amazon's "Appstore" would confuse customers and make them think it was an Apple sanctioned store. Apple owns a trademark on "App Store" and "Appstore" in the UK, while a US application for the term is currently pending approval at the USPTO.
Amazon gets Apple's false advertising claim dismissed from trademark infringement lawsuit
It's been awhile since we last had news from Apple's App Store-based trademark infringement lawsuit against Amazon. Today, Amazon got Apple's claim for false advertising dismissed from that very same case after filing for partial summary judgement. In finding for Amazon, the judge held that Apple failed to identify a single false statement (expressly stated or implied) that Amazon made about the nature, characteristics, or quality of the Amazon Appstore that would deceive customers into thinking it was the same as the Apple App Store -- a legal requirement to establish false advertising under federal law. Not a bad way for Bezos to ring in the new year, eh?
Judge urges Apple, Samsung lawyers to seek 'global peace'
Samsung and Apple faced off again on Thursday in a California courtroom. The pair met with Judge Lucy Koh to discuss a variety of topics including Apple's injunction against Samsung, the fairness of the US$1 billion award and the credibilty of jury foreman Velvin Hogan. During the proceedings, Koh encouraged the two sides to settle their differences, saying it would be good for consumers and for the industry. The two sides have repeatedly tried to negotiate a compromise, but they have failed to reach an agreement. The patent infringement dispute between the two companies spans multiple cases in several countries worldwide. Each side has won small victories, but the war between the two industry leaders is still going strong. [Via Engadget and The Verge]
Dutch court bans sale of some Samsung products
According to an IDG news service report published by Computer World, a Dutch court has banned the sales of Samsung Galaxy products that infringe on an Apple patent. The patent in this case describes a method for scrolling through a photo gallery on a touchscreen device. The ban applies to Galaxy phones or tablets that run Android 2.2.1 and don't use Samsung's own photo gallery software. Samsung claims all its products in the Netherlands use the company's proprietary photo gallery software, but failed to provide the judges with evidence to support this claim. The Court of The Hague granted the ban and will fine Samsung 100,000 Euros (US$129,000) daily if it continues to infringe on Apple's patent. According to IDG, Samsung PR said the company was disappointed with the ruling, while Apple did not respond when asked about this decision.
Apple adds 6 Samsung products to second US patent lawsuit
Late last week, Apple filed a motion to expand its California infringement lawsuit against Samsung to include the handset maker's latest mobile devices. According to FOSS Patents, Apple added the Galaxy Note II, the Galaxy S III, the Galaxy Tab 8.9 WiFi, the Galaxy Tab 2 10.1, the Rugby Pro and the Galaxy S III Mini to its claim. Samsung, last week, also expanded its infringement claims in the same case to include the iPad 4 and the iPad mini. This is the second Apple v. Samsung lawsuit making its way through the California court system and was filed in early 2012. The first lawsuit ended with a guilty verdict against Samsung.
No end in sight for Apple, Samsung legal battle
Samsung apparently won't be swayed by the recent deal between Apple and HTC. According to a report in the Yonhap News, Samsung's mobile and IT division head told reporters that the Korean company doesn't intend to negotiate with Apple. HTC recently signed a 10-year cross-licensing agreement with Apple that will end all legal battles between the two companies. Terms of the deal were not disclosed, but analysts estimate that HTC will send Apple between $6 and $8 per phone in a deal that'll net Apple over $200 million each year.
Judge excuses himself for Siri patent suit
Apple is facing a new patent infringement lawsuit in the US over Siri that was filed on behalf of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. The lawsuit is off to a bumpy start as the judge assigned to the case recused himself over a conflict of interest, according to CNET. When he stepped down, District Court Judge Gary Sharpe pointed to a law that says, "Any conduct that would lead a reasonable [person] knowing all the circumstances to the conclusion that the judge's 'impartiality might reasonably be questioned' is a basis for the judge's disqualification." Sharpe didn't identify his impartiality, but it could be something small like a stock holding or educational background that ties him to either Apple or RPI. The lawsuit was filed last Friday by Dynamic Advances, LLC, a non-practicing entity that supposedly has a license to commercialize Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute's patent portfolio. It can license RPI's patents and sue companies that are infringing. The patent cited in the case is U.S. Patent No. 7,177,798, which describes a "natural language interface using constrained intermediate dictionary of results" and was awarded in 2007. Apple filed its own patent application for Siri in January 2011, but that patent is still pending. Currently, Apple is the only company being accused of infringement by Dynamic Advances.
Dutch court finds Samsung does not infringe on Apple multitouch patent
Apple faced a legal setback in the Netherlands when a Dutch court ruled that Samsung's tablets and smartphones do not infringe on Apple's multitouch patents. This decision reaffirms an earlier, preliminary non-infringement ruling in a case that was heard in August 2011. The Dutch legal decision also mirrors those made in Germany and the UK. In the UK case against HTC, the judge found that there was no infringement and ruled that the multitouch patent was invalid.
Apple's struggle to keep secret documents sealed
After winning big against Samsung in a US court, Apple is now on the defensive, battling against the same court to keep its financial information secret, says a report in Ars Technica. On Tuesday, the company faced a setback in this battle when US Judge Lucy Koh refused to seal documents that contained sensitive financial information. These documents detail "unit sales, revenue, profit, profit margin and cost data" on a product-by-product basis. Though Apple does report sales by device type in its quarterly earnings, it does not break down the sales by model, nor does it reveal its device profit margins, revenue and other similar device-specific information. This financial information is required by the court to justify the billions in monetary damages that Apple is seeking. Apple claims this data should be protected as a trade secret, but Judge Koh, the media and other groups disagree. Koh argued in her denial of Apple's request that Apple "cannot both use its financial data to seek multi-billion dollar damages and insist on keeping it secret." Koh did agree to keep the documents sealed until Apple's request is heard by the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Apple loses appeal in UK case against Samsung
Apple lost its appeal in London's High Court and will have to publicly apologize to Samsung for suggesting the Korean company copied Apple, according to a report in AppleInsider. Apple must take out advertisements in local newspapers and place a notice on its website that states that Samsung did not copy Apple. Earlier this year, Apple was handed a setback in this patent infringement case against Samsung when Judge Colin Birss ruled that Samsung's Galaxy Tab was not infringing. Birss said that Samsung's Galaxy Tab is "not as cool" as the iPad and added that customers are not likely to mistake the iPad with the Tab. As part of his ruling, Judge Colin Birss ordered Apple to publicly apologize to Samsung, a decision that Apple unsuccessfully tried to appeal.
Treehouse Avatar Technologies sues Turbine over a patent granted in May
A company named Treehouse Avatar Technologies was granted United States Patent No. 8,180,858 in May of this year, which covers a "Method And System For Presenting Data Over A Network Based On Network User Choices And Collecting Real-Time Data Related To Said Choices," according to the patent's title. In other words, it covers a method of taking and tracking user choices over a network, a vague description to say the least.Nevertheless, Treehouse has decided to use the patent to take on Lord of the Rings Online and Dungeons and Dragons Online creator Turbine, Inc., and has sued the game maker for infringement on a number of counts, including character attributes like Strength and Charisma. Specifically, Treehouse mentions "the feature of tallying the number of times the selected character attribute(s) have been selected by users of the game."Too vague? That's for the courts to decide, apparently. Treehouse is aiming for a full injunction against Turbine from using the system described by the patent, and for "adequate compensation" in damages. The full complaint is available to read online.
German court: Motorola, Samsung don't violate Apple touch event patent
Motorola and Samsung won a small victory in Mannheim Regional Court this week when a panel ruled that the two companies do not infringe on Apple's "touch event model patent," says Florian Mueller of FOSS Patents. Judge Andreas Voss oversaw the two separate lawsuits that happened to make their way through the German court at the same time. According to FOSS Patents, Apple patent EP2098948 is a fairly broad patent that describes how an operating system recognizes touch events in multitouch-enabled devices. Because of its general nature, enforcement of the patent would have required a significant amount of effort to develop a workaround and would likely degrade the resulting user experience of any competitor's products. Apple lost a similar case in the Netherlands where it was denied an injunction request based on this patent. The Cupertino company also asserted this patent against HTC in the UK and the court ruled the patent was invalid. The German court didn't take the ruling that far, but it did let Motorola and Samsung off the hook this time. [Via Engadget]
Court upholds Apple victory in Cover Flow, Spotlight, Time Machine patents
An appeals court in Washington has upheld a recent Apple victory on a number of different patents for features in the OS X operating system, including things like Cover Flow, Spotlight search and Time Machine. A company called Mirror Worlds is trying to get a judgment that Apple infringed on its patents with those features, but after initially winning damages of more than $625 million in a jury case, Apple was able to get the decision appealed and wiped the initial ruling clean. Now, an appeals court has denied Mirror Worlds' appeal, leaving Apple the victor, at least until another appeal is filed and run through the courts yet again. Apple's been doing well for itself in patent cases lately -- this ruling follows a huge decision a little while ago that earned Apple a whopping $1.05 billion in damages. That case is also probably set to be appealed by Samsung, as these companies will use whatever tactics they can to try and avoid paying out these huge sums of money.
Google on Apple v. Samsung: most infringed patents 'don't relate to the core Android operating system'
When the jury in Apple v. Samsung handed down its verdict on Friday, we watched Apple take a victory lap and heard Samsung warn of hampered competition, but one company remained conspicuously silent: Google. This weekend, though, Mountain View finally released a statement, insisting that while Samsung lost the trial, the ruling doesn't actually implicate Android. "The court of appeals will review both infringement and the validity of the patent claims. Most of these don't relate to the core Android operating system," the company said, noting that several of these patents are being revisited by the US Patent Office. Still, buried in that statement is an implicit acknowledgement that if Samsung can't reverse the decision on appeal, innovation among Android devices might well be stifled: "The mobile industry is moving fast and all players - including newcomers - are building upon ideas that have been around for decades. We work with our partners to give consumers innovative and affordable products, and we don't want anything to limit that." Of course, Samsung has indeed said it intends to appeal (and an internal memo reported by CNET corroborates this), so it would seem that the proxy battle against Android is far from over, and the drone of legalese is sure to continue.
