infringement
Latest
Apple sues Amazon for App Store trademark infringement
You had to know this was coming. Apple, which is already engaged in a heated battle with Microsoft to prove that it deserves the sole rights over its "App Store" trademark claim, has filed suit against Amazon for "improper use" of the same. Amazon's Android Appstore seems to have been intentionally contracted to a single word to differentiate its name, but that difference isn't enough for Apple, which has asked a California court to grant a ruling preventing Amazon's use of the moniker and asking for unspecified damages. Apple claims it reached out to Amazon on three separate occasions asking it to rename its software download offering, but when faced with the lack of a "substantive response," it decided to take things to court. Its big task remains unchanged -- proving that the term App Store is something more than a generic descriptor -- and this was a somewhat inevitable move given Amazon's choice of name. The legal maneuvering, as always, continues.
ChaCha sues HTC for Facebook phone trademark infringement
Facebook phone rumors were swirling for quite awhile, then HTC answered a question that seemingly nobody asked by delivering unto the world a phone with a dedicated Facebook button... the ChaCha. In what can only be considered a stroke of luck for all of humanity, the Taiwanese handset maker has been granted the opportunity to rectify its naming gaffe courtesy of a trademark infringement suit brought by ChaCha Inc. That company trademarked its name and logo in 2007 for its text and voice internet search engine services and is (rightfully) displeased with the HTC's choice of names for its Facebook-focused handset. ChaCha doesn't want mobile users thinking that it's endorsed the phone, and given that the company's bread and butter is providing mobile search, such confusion seems likely. ChaCha is asking for money damages and a permanent injunction to prevent the phone from going to market with its name. That's just fine with us -- if only the courts could grant an injunction to remove that Facebook button.
Motorola dragged into court for Xoom trademark infringement
To Xoom or not to Xoom, that is the question -- and Xoom Corporation says Motorola needs to ditch the name of its new Honeycomb-laden slate. That's right, Xoom has filed a trademark infringement lawsuit asking for monetary damages, a temporary restraining order, and / or a preliminary injunction to spoil Moto's release party for its new tablet. In case you're curious, Xoom (the company) does seem to predate the slate by a good bit: it's been operating its online payments business under that name and has owned the www.xoom.com domain since 2003. Xoom got a registered service mark for its money transfer and e-payment services in 2004. But what about that Xoom trademark Motorola filed last year for mobile computers and related accessories? Traditionally, courts give priority to the first user to register a mark, so Xoom Corp. certainly has a case here, but we're not so sure they'll be able to prove that consumers are likely to be confused. To find out, the court will look at multiple factors to determine the likelihood of confusion: the strength of Xoom's mark, the similarities between the two marks, the proximity of Xoom's services and software to Moto's tablet in the consumer marketplace, evidence of actual customer confusion, and the similarity of the marketing channels used by Moto and Xoom. Honestly, we can't see Moto marketing the Xoom tablet to anyone looking for online payment services (aside from the occasional Android Market purchase) so Xoom Corp. has a tough road to hoe, but stranger things have happened -- we'll see how it goes.
IcedRobot Android fork to sidestep legal battle between Oracle, Google
We'd prepared ourselves for a drawn-out legal battle between Oracle and Google when we heard the former was suing the latter for Java-related copyright infringement, but fortunately for Android enthusiasts, not everyone was so resigned. A team of developers are working on an Android fork called IcedRobot (yep, that's the logo) to separate the offending Dalvik Virtual Machine from the OS, hopefully circumventing this epic argument altogether. The project seeks to create a Java Virtual Machine (JVM) that is based on OpenJDK (an open-source implementation of Java), avoiding Oracle's Apache Harmony, and to allow Android to run on just about any PC with the use of Hotspot, another device non-specific JVM using open-source Java. It's a tall order, and the devilish little Android has already gained a healthy amount of tech industry skepticism, but we're interested to see if these guys can make it work. Either way, we're pretty sure we've still got years of legal volleying to go before Google and Oracle can play nice again -- this ain't no People's Court, folks.
LG files ITC complaint against Sony, goes blow for blow
Late last year, Sony smacked LG with claims of patent infringement, and now the Korean company is swinging back with complaints of its own. LG reportedly filed two claims with the ITC on February 4th, accusing Sony devices -- including Bravia and PlayStation 3 -- of stepping on eight separate LG patents. We knew something like this couldn't be far behind Sony's ITC filing and accompanying federal court case, and we're equally unmoved to hear LG is firing back with its very own civil suit, recently filed in California. Last year we saw patent infringement suits spread like meningitis in a college dorm, and if this dispute is any sign, we can expect to see more of the same in 2011. Let the litigation begin!
Oops: Android contains directly copied Java code, strengthening Oracle's case (updated)
Florian Mueller has been killing it these past few months with his analysis of various tech patent suits on his FOSSpatents blog, and today he's unearthed a pretty major bombshell: at least 43 Android source files that appear to have been directly copied from Java. That's a big deal, seeing as Oracle is currently suing Google for patent and copyright infringement in Android -- which isn't a hard case to prove when you've got 37 Android source files marked "PROPRIETARY / CONFIDENTIAL" and "DO NOT DISTRIBUTE" by Oracle / Sun and at least six more files in Froyo and Gingerbread that appear to have been decompiled from Java 2 Standard Edition and redistributed under the Apache open source license without permission. In simple terms? Google copied Oracle's Java code, pasted in a new license, and shipped it. Now, we've long thought Google's odd response to Oracle's lawsuit seemingly acknowledged some infringement, so we doubt this is a surprise in Mountain View, but we're guessing handset vendors aren't going to be so thrilled -- especially since using Android has already caused companies like HTC and Motorola to be hit with major patent lawsuits of their own. We'll see what happens, but in the meantime you should definitely hit up Florian's site for the full dirt -- it's some 47 pages worth of material, and it's dense, but if you're into this sort of thing it's incredibly interesting. Update: It appears things aren't this simple, but they're still not great. Check here for the latest.
Alcatel-Lucent trust sues Apple and others over video patents
Apple has been hit with yet another patent infringement lawsuit this week. The lawsuit was filed on Monday in the U.S. District Court for Southern California by the Multimedia Patent Trust. The MPT is a subsidiary of Alcatel-Lucent that was formed when Alcatel merged with Lucent Technologies in 2006. The MPT controls and defends a block of patents previously owned by Lucent. The company has a litigious history and has filed infringement lawsuits against Microsoft, Dell, Disney and DirecTV. The four patents listed in this infringement case focus on video codecs with Apple allegedly infringing on three of the four patents. Cited in the complaint are Apple's MacBook lineup of laptops, the iPhone and its video editing solution, Final Cut Pro. Apple is not alone in this lawsuit; Canon cameras and camcorders, LG mobile phones and TiVo DVR equipment are also being targeted by MPT. MPT is asking for past royalty payments from these alleged infringing products and, at least for Apple, is not seeking an injunction.
Patent battle continues between Nokia and Apple with 13 more disputed patents
The fun doesn't stop in the ongoing Nokia/Apple patent dispute; the Finnish cell phone manufacturer has now filed claims in three European countries alleging Apple infringement on 13 additional patents, beyond the 24 patents already covered in the existing US and International Trade Commission filings. Nokia has chosen to file claims on four patents in the UK High Court, seven patents in district court in Dusseldorf, five in Mannheim and two in the Hague. I'm not a patent lawyer (to say nothing of an international intellectual property expert), so I can't say why there's a split between the two German courts, but the company also filed separate claims in the US's Federal courts in two states (Wisconsin and Delaware). These patents cover technologies that Nokia claims are used in the iPhone, iPad and iPod touch, among other products. They include on-device app stores, touch user interface elements, caller ID and more. Apple, of course, isn't standing idle on the patent litigation front. Over the past year, the company has retained top legal talent to help defend against Nokia, Motorola and other patent challengers while pressing Apple's own counterclaims of patent infringement. [via Engadget]
Judge throws out Paul Allen's massive patent suit, Allen plans to continue
Remember the massive patent lawsuit leveled at Apple, Google, AOL, Facebook, ebay, Netflix, and a number of other companies by Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen? Well, it's now hit something of a snag -- a federal judge dismissed the case on Friday, stating that Allen's suit "failed to identify the infringing products or devices with any specificity," and that the court and defendants were basically "left to guess what devices infringe on the four patents." For his part, Allen apparently plans to persevere with the patent fight, and said through a spokesman that the dismissal was merely a "procedural issue," and that "the case is staying on track" -- Allen now has until December 28th to file an amended complaint.
Shocker! WiLAN drums up another lawsuit, this time against big cable
As the saying goes, every time an iPhone is dropped, another wide sweeping patent lawsuit in the tech world sprouts up in the plaintiff-friendly US District courts of east Texas. Okay, so perhaps there's no factual basis for that, but who knows if the latest case filed by suit-happy Canadian wireless company WiLAN against Comcast, Time Warner, and Charter Communications is any more legitimate. The dispute is over US patent No. 5,661,602, which is one of the company's 970 issued or pending patents, and was awarded in 1998. It covers "hybrid multichannel data transmission systems utilizing a broadcast medium" -- a.k.a. the broadcasting of data to remote networks and computers. WiLAN has tapped their ole' favorite US law firm, McKool Smith for the case, and asserts that the big cable triumvirate is in violation of the patent, though a spokesperson for Comcast did note they had not been served with a complaint just yet. Sadly (or not-so-sadly, depending on perspective) we can't take part in the gavel swinging, but considering that WiLAN filed suit against Alcatel-Lucent, Sony Ericsson and LG last month, and sued Acer, Apple, Dell, HP, and Lenovo in April, there's plenty of evidence that this outfit's lawyers are the hardest working employees on the payroll.
Apple loses, challenges patent verdict surrounding Cover Flow and Time Machine
Remember that one random company who sued Apple back in March of 2008 for ripping off its display interface patents? Turns out it was filed in the Eastern District of Texas, a hotbed for patent trolls who know that they stand a better-than-average chance of winning simply because of where their issues are being taken up. Sure enough, Cupertino's stock of lawyers is today being forced to challenge a loss after a jury verdict led to Apple being ordered to pay "as much as $625.5 million to Mirror Worlds for infringing patents related to how documents are displayed digitally." Ouch. Naturally, Apple has asked U.S. District Judge Leonard Davis for an emergency stay, noting that there are issues on two of the three; furthermore, Apple has claimed that Mirror Worlds would be "triple dipping" if it were to collect $208.5 million on each patent. In related news, the Judge is also considering a separate Apple request (one filed prior to the verdict) to "rule the company doesn't infringe two of the patents" -- if granted, that would "strike the amount of damages attributed to those two patents." In other words, this whole ordeal is far from over. We can't say we're thrilled at the thought of following the play-by-play here, but this could definitely put a mild dent in Apple's monstrous $45.8 billion pile of cash and securities. Or as some would say, "a drop in the bucket."
Rambus victorious in patent fight with NVIDIA, can expect neat wad of cash for its troubles
So what if Rambus doesn't really produce anything tangible these days? We're hearing the "innovation" business is going really well for the company that recently celebrated its 1,000th patent, and now there's a nice big windfall in its near future as well. The US International Trade Commission has handed down a ruling agreeing with a previous judgment that NVIDIA infringed on three Rambus patents in the design of its memory controllers, with the ultimate outcome being a ban on importing such infringing goods into the country. Of course, that's the one thing we're sure won't be happening, but NVIDIA will now have to sign up for a license to Rambus' precious IP portfolio, which might be a tad bit costly given that GeForce, Quadro, nForce, Tesla and Tegra chips are named as being in violation -- aside from Ion, that's pretty much NVIDIA's whole hardware business.[Thanks, Marc]Update: NVIDIA, unsurprisingly, has said it will appeal the ruling. [Thanks, Xero2]
App Store filling up with spammers and clones of popular apps
Marco Arment has noticed a growing problem on the App Store; as hits emerge from among the free and paid apps, some companies are doing a little search scamming. They're ripping off the names, styles, and sometimes even the art of popular iPhone apps. He went to get the popular Angry Birds game and found that there are companies actually selling apps with "Cheats" and "Trivia" added on to the titles, often reusing the artwork from the original game. Certainly, some of these fall into a legal gray area (Angry Bird is technically another game, even though it's obviously hopping on the back of the more popular title), but some of them are straight up scams, and the angry reviews and terrible ratings prove that's the case. Arment calls out a few companies (whose titles are still on the App Store, as of this writing). He says that developers who feel an app is infringing on their trademarks can send a message to appstorenotices@apple.com to let Apple know about the problem. We'd love to see Apple clean house on these, but of course, we're not yet sure of their position. They may have some guidelines that define how close an app can get before it's actually infringing, but some of these are clearly over the line. We'll have to wait and see what actions Apple decides to take.
Nokia takes aim at iPad in latest legal skirmish with Apple
Surprising exactly nobody, Nokia put the Apple iPad in its sights in its ongoing battle against Apple for patent infringement. Nokia originally sunk its legal hooks into Apple back in October, 2009, when it sued Apple in the United States District Court in the District of Delaware for violating many of its patents relating to GSM, WiFi, and UMTS. The suit itself was put on hold back in March pending an International Trade Commission investigation arising out of complaints filed by both parties, in which hearings are scheduled to be held in October and November. But just to keep things interesting, Nokia went ahead and filed a complaint in the United States District Court in the Western District of Wisconsin to add the iPad 3G to its list of infringing Apple products. Why Wisconsin? Well, Nokia and Apple pretty much have their choice of venue, doing business all over the United States. It's likely that this particular district represents a blend of court rules and precedent that favor Nokia in some way. [via Engadget]
AUO scores patent lawsuit decision over LG Display
LG Display may want to be more careful where it aims those patent lawsuits next time, after a dispute it kicked off with AUO has lead to a finding by a U.S. District court that it actually violated AUO's patents and not the other way around. Say hello to patent Nos 6,778,160, 6,689,629, 7,125,157 and 7,090,506, covering "technologies help to improve response time, improve reliability of LCDs, solve the problem of defects in the displayed images, and provide a very compact structure useful for small handheld devices, respectively." So far AUO is indicating that it will seek an injunction preventing LG from shipping its potentially infringing HDTVs, monitors, notebooks and even phones to the U.S, plus some other legal tough talk for good measure. After LG's almost inevitable appeal this could drag out for years and/or be resolved in a sudden alliance of cross licensing so while there still may be time to grab that Chocolate Touch you've been eyeing, we'd keep a casual eye on LE9500 shipping dates in case of slippage.
Microsoft says Android infringes on its patents, licenses HTC (update: talking to other Android manufacturers as well)
The lawyers up in Redmond seem to have been woken from their slumber with the sudden realization that -- oh look! -- Google's Android OS infringes on Microsoft's boatload of software patents. How specifically it does so is not identified, but Microsoft believes that elements from both the user interface and the underlying operating system are in violation of its rights. This is very much in keeping with the Windows maker's crusade to assert patent claims over Linux, which in the past has garnished it with cross-licensing deals with Amazon and Xandros, as well as a settlement from TomTom. Lawsuits are not yet being discussed here, but lest you think this is a small-time disturbance, longtime Windows Mobile / Windows Phone partner HTC has already decided to shorten its list of troubles by ponying up for a license from Microsoft that covers its Android phones -- it would be pretty insane if Microsoft sued one of its biggest and most important hardware manufacturers for patent infringement, after all. Even still, it's now an unfortunate fact that HTC is having to pay Microsoft royalties to use Google's operating system. Strange days, indeed. Update: Microsoft deputy general counsel of intellectual property Horacio Gutierrez just sent us a statement saying that the company's been "talking to several device manufacturers to address our concerns relative to the Android mobile platform." We're taking that to mean the same as above: Microsoft isn't too interested in suing any of its Windows Mobile / Windows Phone partners, so it's trying to work out patent license deals with those companies in advance of any nastiness. It's an interesting strategy: patents forbid anyone from making, using, or selling your invention, so Redmond can protect its partners while still leaving open the possibility of a lawsuit with Google itself down the line. In fact, we'd almost say it seems like Microsoft's agreement with HTC is as much of a threat to Google as Apple's lawsuit -- Redmond's basically saying you can't sell an Android device without paying a license fee, and we'd bet those fees are real close to the Windows Phone 7 license fee. Clever, clever -- we'll see how this one plays out. Here's Horacio's full statement: Microsoft has a decades-long record of investment in software platforms. As a result, we have built a significant patent portfolio in this field, and we have a responsibility to our customers, partners, and shareholders to ensure that competitors do not free ride on our innovations. We have also consistently taken a proactive approach to licensing to resolve IP infringement by other companies, and have been talking with several device manufacturers to address our concerns relative to the Android mobile platform. [Thanks, Jack]
UK court rules in favor of CDV against SouthPeak again
The avalanche of bad days keeps rolling at the SouthPeak offices as today the UK High Court has once again sided against the publisher in its longstanding legal battle against distributor CDV. In the most recent decision, the court ruled in favor of CDV that SouthPeak was liable for inducing copyright infringement. In 2009, the same high court ruled that Gamecock, a SouthPeak subsidiary, had failed to submit four titles early enough for the 2008 holiday season, costing the publisher to the tune of about $3.1 million. In the current legal battle, German distributor CDV claimed SouthPeak had induced copyright infringement and breach of contract and legal costs. While the new ruling favors the distributor's claims of infringement and legal costs, the court did not find SouthPeak in breach of its contract with CDV. SouthPeak also faces claims from other former partner companies. In a statement to the court, the preceding judge said she had noted that CDV was able to prove SouthPeak US "has both participated in, and authorized, the infringing activities in relation to the making, distribution, and sale." According to GamesIndustry.biz, SouthPeak's recently reported loss of $2.6 million for its second financial quarter ending on December 31, 2009, can (in part) be attributed to the UK high court's previous ruling.
LGJ: Dante's Infringement (or lack thereof)
Mark Methenitis contributes Law of the Game on Joystiq ("LGJ"), a column on legal issues as they relate to video games: While I'm still waiting for my copy of Dante's Inferno, I have been checking out the review sites, Achievement guides and message boards in preparation for the arrival of the game. One question that keeps being asked over and over again, between many different boards, is "How is EA not being sued over this game?" While the overwhelming majority of these posts reference God of War, I have even seen mention of a "license" to Inferno (as a part of the Divine Comedy). Before I begin, I know many people might have issue with me writing this before playing, but I can assure you between the videos available online and the demo, I've experienced enough of the game to be able to come to a simple conclusion: No infringement here. Let's get the latter, more absurd suggestion off the table first. There's not now, nor will there ever a be, a license to Inferno, the epic poem by Dante. Why is that? It's a part of the public domain. It, as a work, would have been eligible for copyright had such laws been in place at the time, but even with the modern expansive rules, the copyright would have ended hundreds of year ago. After all, taking the normal 'life of the author plus 70 years' for works created after 1978 in the US, 70 years after Dante's death was 1391. We're well past 600 years after Dante's death at this point; in fact, 2021 will mark the 700 year anniversary of Dante's death, 10 times the length granted by statute. So, this particular statement was absurd even for forum posts, but the idea that Dante's Inferno infringes on God of War isn't much more sound.
Toshiba seeks to prevent Wistron laptop imports to the US
Don't you sometimes wish legal squabbles like this actually delivered on their promises? There's pretty much no way that Toshiba's patent claim with the US International Trade Commission will lead to a ban on Wistron imports -- the company builds laptops for Acer, Dell, HP, Lenovo and others, and will likely settle in cash long before any rulings against it -- but it's fun to imagine the mayhem that would result if such an eventuality were to materialize. A quick look at the rankings of global computer vendors shows that Toshiba is mostly trying to throw a banana skin in front of its direct competitors, claiming as it does that Wistron products infringe on its methodologies for touchpad production and file saving when the laptop loses power. The ITC, should it decide to investigate, will take up to 15 months on this matter, so no breath-holding is advised just yet, though if that settlement does eventuate it should be a pretty breathtaking number.
Nintendo wins yet another patent infringement case
Nintendo seems to be on a streak as of late, laying down a good old Mario stomp over any patent infringement case thrown its way. Back in March, Nintendo won a case filed in Texas by Fenner Investments Ltd, and now Nintendo has won another one filed by Guardian Media Technologies, Ltd. On June 8th, only six months after the lawsuit was filed in California, Judge Manuel Real ruled in favor of Nintendo and dismissed the case.Nintendo's VP of legal and general counsel, Rick Flamm, is jovial over the court's decision. He said that the case was dismissed because Nintendo convinced the court that "Guardian's patent had nothing to do with Nintendo's products." Mr. Flamm must be keeping one of those glittery stars in his pocket, because it looks like Nintendo's legal game is invincible.
