injunction
Latest
LA and San Francisco sue Uber, but settle with Lyft for $500k
Wonder how Uber's week could get worse? Today the district attorneys for Los Angeles and San Francisco announced they're following through on their threat to sue the company, and that they have reached a settlement with its competitor Lyft. According to the DAs (PDF), the lawsuit against Uber is because of "false and misleading statements to consumers." Specifically they take issue with the quality of the background checks Uber claims it uses on drivers and its $1 "Safe Rides" fee, a failure to have authorization to work at airports, and a practice of collecting but not passing on a $4 "airport fee toll" at SFO. SF DA George Gascón and LA DA Jackie Lacey are looking for an injunction to shut Uber's service, penalties and restitution. For its part, Lyft agreed to stop making misleading statements about its background checks, seek authorization from any airports where it offers service and pay $500k in civil penalties. But hey, at least Uber has a Spotify tie-in. Update: Uber spokesperson Eva Behrend said "We will continue to engage in discussions with the District Attorneys" and that Uber is a safe part of the transportation ecosystem. Check after the break for the full statement. [Image credit: ZUMA Press, Inc. / Alamy]
Leaving Las Vegas: Uber suspends operations in Nevada
The home of Las Vegas is meant to be a paradise of unhinged abandon, where consequences don't matter and everyone has a great time. Unfortunately, no one at the Washoe County District Court got that memo, since it's just slammed Uber with a preliminary injunction preventing it from operating in the state. It was the usual roll of objections that have stopped the service, since Uber vehicles aren't subject to the same safety, insurance and licensing rules that taxis are. The company, for its part, has pledged not to abandon the state, saying that it'll work with Nevada's leadership to come to a useful solution. Maybe at the same time it'll try to clean up its reputation after a series of blunders, gaffes and PR disasters.
Judge: NCAA's likeness compensation rules violate antitrust laws
U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken ruled yesterday that NCAA rules prohibiting student athletes from receiving compensation for the use of their images, names and likenesses violates antitrust laws, CBS Sports reported. NCAA rules do not allow colleges to pay athletes when their images are used in a video game series such as EA Sports' NCAA Football games, and Wilken said those rules "unreasonably restrain trade." Wilken is the same judge that ordered settlement talks between the NCAA and Ed O'Bannon in February, after EA agreed to settle its own likeness lawsuits with student athletes to the tune of $40 million in September 2013. EA canceled its next NCAA Football game at that time and began "evaluating [its] plan for the future of the franchise." The publisher later reported an additional $8 million in expected expenses as a result of the lawsuit settlement, which amounted to roughly $1,000 per athlete, per appearance in the games.
Apple wants more money from Samsung, so it's asking for a retrial
The next chapter of the (seemingly) never ending legal wrangling between Samsung and Apple is here, and because it's a holiday weekend when everyone has better things to do, Apple is tossing a few new requests into the ring. After recent jury ruling found Samsung in violation of certain patents (and Apple in violation of one itself), Apple is simultaneously requesting a retrial in pursuit of more damages than the $119 million it was already awarded, and asking the US to ban Samsung from selling the infringing products. That could include current or future phones and tablets that Apple says are using its tech for things like slide-to-unlock and word prediction. It's not clear if there's any real chance of either request being granted, but FOSS Patents has posted the documents if you'd enjoy Apple's legal arguments for some weekend reading. [Image credit: Brent Lewin/Bloomberg]
Aereo's internet TV service in Denver and Salt Lake City shuts down today
Aereo's streams in Denver and Salt Lake City hung on for a while after the US District Court of Utah granted its opponents a preliminary injunction on February 20th, but today they're shutting off. Yesterday a panel of federal court judges denied Aereo's request to stay the injunction while it appeals, claiming "Aereo has not made a strong showing that it is likely to succeed on the merits of its appeal. Nor has Aereo demonstrated that the other factors weigh in its favor." As a result, the antenna-to-streaming company has informed affected customers service will go dark today at 10am. For now, it's looking forward to the upcoming Supreme Court case to affirm its belief that the service is legal, and issuing a refund for this month's service for anyone living in those two markets. Aereo's hearing is set to take place April 22nd -- check out CEO Chet Kanojia's message to customers after the break. [Thanks, Marc]
Nikon takes first blood against Polaroid's knock-off J1
Remember when Nikon noticed that Polaroid's iM1836 looked a little too much like the J1 and lawyered-up? The case has arrived at the Southern District Court of New York, where a judge probably took 30 seconds to nod their head and say "Yeah, that's the same device." As such, Nikon has won a preliminary injunction preventing the sale and manufacture of the suspiciously-similar shooter. If you were in the hunt for a J1 knock-off, it looks as if you'll have to take your business elsewhere -- at least for now.
UK court sides with Volkswagen on security concerns over key pairing
Giovanni Ribisi had better hope he doesn't botch a job anytime soon. Flavio Garcia from the University of Birmingham cracked the security system that pairs an owner's key to their Porsche, Lamborghini or Audi, and Volkswagen's parent company wants that research to remain unpublished. The UK's high court sided with VW's owner and granted an injunction protecting the Megamos Crypto system. Afterward, Garcia was offered to print his findings, but without the all-important decryption codes. He refused, saying that the public has a right to see the holes in the systems it relies on and that this wasn't an attempt to give criminals a hand in boosting cars. While the court's logic is sound -- once revealed, all manner of "if this ever fell into the wrong hands" situations could arise -- it's unsettling to see government bend to corporate request. At least we know Eleanor can sit in the garage for just a little longer now.
Project Tank tanked by World of Tanks
A while ago, Project Tank popped up on our radar for two reasons. First of all, it was a browser-based multiplayer tank-based combat simulator. Second, it bore a lot of similarities to the existing multiplayer tank-based combat simulator World of Tanks, enough that Wargaming.net brought out the copyright lawyers. A copyright infringement suit was filed today by Wargaming.net, claiming that Project Tank directly copies many elements of World of Tanks and violates some existing patents. Gamebox has responded to these claims on the official site for the game, claiming that Wargaming.net has engaged in "underhanded" actions to try to shut down the project. This marks the end of the closed beta for Project Tank, which is promising open beta in approximately a month. You can take a look at the side-by-side comparison from before and draw your own conclusions about whether Project Tank is being unfairly accused or entirely fairly accused.
Samsung: Apple-requested injunction would 'confuse and intimidate' customers
Samsung has a new legal argument in its ongoing litigation with Apple over the sale of certain Android-based smartphones in the US. While the basis of Apple's case is patent infringement claims, Samsung is now arguing that allowing Apple a permanent injunction would "intimidate and confuse" customers. The drive of Samsung's case, according to an examination by FOSS Patents, is that the injunction "would not stop any ongoing infringement, for Samsung has either discontinued the accused products or designed around any infringing features in ones that it still sells." Apple won a massive US$1.05 billion award for damages in the case this past August, however at the end of April it was announced the companies would be returning to court to renegotiate the amount due to jury errors when calculating damages. A new trial has been set for November 12 to determine the new award for Apple. Samsung is arguing that allowing the injunction to go through would create confusion in the market place for retailers and consumers, leading to a belief that non-infringing products were covered as well. The move cites Apple's actions last year when they sent letters to retailers warning them about the injunction, even though a majority of the products listed in the injunction were no longer for sale, or had been updated to work around the patents. As of press time Apple has not commented on Samsung's filing. You can read FOSS Patents full run down here.
HTC One HDR microphone disappears from spec sheet after Nokia injunction (updated)
We've wondered what HTC would do after a Dutch court banned it from using HDR Microphones in its oft-delayed One handset, and now we know. It looks like the company has now nixed references to the Nokia-developed component on its website, raising the possibility that the handsets currently being manufactured have HTC's "improved" microphones rather than the original STMicroelectronics unit on board. None of this should affect phones that are already on the market, but we've reached out to HTC to find out what this means for future One owners and will let you know more when we do. [Thanks, Ted] Update: HTC has reiterated its position (after the break) saying that the company is entitled to use its remaining supplies of STM's HDR Microphones until they run out.
HTC insists Nokia's injunction won't affect the One's current stock, new mics in the works
In an email to press, HTC took the opportunity to make a few clarifications about the injunction filed by Nokia this week regarding the dual-membrane microphone in the One. The preliminary injunction claims that the high-amplitude mic, which HTC uses in its flagship device, was supposed to be manufactured exclusively for the Finnish company (and currently used in the Lumia 720). If you've been wondering how this particular action would affect sales of the high-end HTC handset, spokespeople assure us that it's business as usual for the company. According to its official statement, the One is not the actual target of any injunction in The Netherlands -- in actuality, the legalities of the matter are apparently only between Nokia and STMicroelectronics, the supplier of the component in question. HTC tells us that Nokia's attempts to institute a recall of the One failed; since the products were purchased in good faith, the ruling states that HTC can continue to use microphones that are in its inventory. Despite having a history rich in manufacturing delays, we're told that this legal ruling will have no effect on the One's availability. The Taiwanese phone maker plans a transition to "improved microphone designs" as soon as its current stock of STM supplies has been exhausted, a move which HTC claims will be transparent to consumers. Head below to see the full statement.
Nokia's co-developed high-amplitude mics retain 10-month exclusivity, HTC has to look elsewhere (updated)
Nokia's injunction yesterday has now been made a little more concrete. The Amsterdam district court has handed down a 10-month ban on STMicroelectronics selling its high-amplitude mics to anyone other than the Finnish phone maker. The same dual-membrane microphone is used in both the Lumia 720 and the HTC One, but Nokia (which co-developed and designed the component) had signed a 12-month exclusivity deal with the chipmaker -- a deal that STMicroelectronics apparently thought was only six months long. According to All About Phones NL, the ruling won't halt sales of One devices already out there, with the court stating that HTC was "blameless" and that it couldn't have known about the contract between Nokia and STMicroelectronics. In short, you'll still be able to buy HTC's flagship in the Netherlands with those dual high-amp mics in tow -- at least for now. We've reached out to both companies for comment, but it's shaping up to be another parts supply woe for HTC's new smartphone. Update: We've just heard from HTC on this, and its response is largely the same as yesterday's: "HTC is disappointed in the decision. We are consulting with STM and will decide whether it is necessary to explore alternative solutions in due course. In the meanwhile, we do not expect this decision to have any immediate impact on our handset sales."
Nokia granted preliminary injunction against HTC in the Netherlands over high-amplitude mics
Don't worry, this time it's not a patent issue. However, it is more bad news for HTC's already-delayed One. Nokia has been granted an injunction by the Amsterdam district court concerning the technology HTC used in its current flagship. The legal battle involves a pair of high-amplitude mics housed within One's aluminum body, which are apparently the same dual-membrane components that Nokia's used in its recent Lumia 720, seen above. The Finnish company recently applied for a preliminary injunction, pointing the finger at STMicroelectronics, which is responsible for manufacturing the mic for both Nokia and HTC. According to our source, the issue is likely to be a breach of an NDA between Nokia and STMicroelectronics, as the phone maker asserts that the "microphone components [were] invented by and manufactured exclusively for Nokia." We're still hearing new details and will update as we learn more. We've also reached out to HTC for comment. For now, you can read up on Nokia's statement following the court's decision, embedded after the break. Update: HTC has offered up an official statement in response to the injunction: "HTC is disappointed in the decision. We are considering whether it will have any impact on our business and we will explore alternative solutions immediately."
Nokia obtains injunction on HTC in Germany over battery saving wireless technology
Last May Nokia announced a serious patent offensive against several companies, one of which is HTC. According to FOSS Patents, today a German court awarded Nokia a patent injunction based on power saving technology it has patents for, and it claims is infringed upon by Qualcomm chips used in HTC's phones. While some of its other cases in Germany were stayed or dismissed, this ruling could be used by Nokia against HTC even during a potential appeal. We'll see if this is resolved in the courtroom or by some sort of license agreement, in the meantime we've contacted both companies for more information on the latest round of patent lawsuit bingo. Update: Nokia has responded, mentioning that it has 30 other patents asserted against HTC in the US, UK and Germany, with a US case scheduled to start in two months. You can read its response in full after the break. Update 2: HTC tells us that its German business will not be affected by the ruling, and that its newer handsets do not use the technology in question. You can also read their statement in full after the break.
LG Display drops injunction request on Galaxy Note 10.1, seeks 'alternative solution' with Samsung
A patent struggle between LG Display and Samsung Display kicked off late last year when the latter filed a lawsuit claiming its counterpart had stolen technology secrets tied to the production of OLED screens. In turn, LG threatened its own injunctions and the fight was on but now it may be moving towards a resolution. After rumors indicated the two were trying to talk it out a few days ago Samsung Display dropped its injunction request, and now LG has responded in kind. After dropping its request for an injunction preventing the sale of Samsung's Galaxy Note 10.1 in South Korea, LG Display says it is seeking a resolution "through an amicable negotiation" -- you can read the official statement in full after the break. With any luck, these two will have hugged it out by the time their latest round of devices are ready to ship, and we can enjoy our HDTVs, phones and tablets in peace.
Samsung Display drops injunction request against LG Display, moves closer to OLED peace
While actual peace is suddenly in some doubt in the region, Korean display makers LG Display and Samsung Display have moved a step closer to resolving their legal issues. Yonhap News reports that Samsung has dropped a request to block LG's products based on the use of its confidential OLED tech. LG responded by trying to ban several Galaxy phones and tablets, however just a few days ago it was reported that the two are meeting behind closed doors to work out the disagreements. If they can come to an agreement, let's hope that spirit of goodwill can extend to nuke wielding world leaders and tech giants alike. Update: Samsung Display sent over a statement, which is included after the break.
LG wants the Samsung Galaxy Note 10.1 terminated, says it breaches viewing angle patents
When Samsung came swinging with allegations of OLED patent infringements and corporate theft, LG promptly counter-sued. Samsung then escalated by broadening its list of patent complaints, forcing LG to do what any dignified electronics brawler would have to do: file for a retaliatory injunction against the "sale, manufacture and importation" of one of Sammy's products. The device at stake today is the unsuspecting Galaxy Note 10.1, which has no direct rival among LG's current product range but which is claimed to have breached three LG display patents concerning the improvement of viewing angles. For its part, Samsung is dismissing the attack as "unjustified" and doesn't seem overly concerned by LG's demand for damages -- nothing less than a billion won ($1 million) for each day the Note 10.1 continues to be made and sold.
FTC calls Motorola's bid for Apple product injunction 'inappropriate'
On December 5, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) stated in a filed brief that it felt a previous district court decision to deny Motorola's bid for an injunction of several Apple products was correct. Motorola had claimed that Apple's iPhone and iPad allegedly infringed on wireless patents, and requested that the courts block Apple from selling iPhones and iPads in the United States. The FTC brief said that a court-ordered injunction is inappropriate when the holder of a patent has licensed it under fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory (FRAND) terms. The FTC felt that Motorola might have been using the threat of an injunction in what is called "patent hold-up." When a patent is considered standard-essential (SEP), the patent owner sometimes threatens legal action to get higher than usual royalty rates and licensing terms. For budding Apple lawyers, the brief can be found here in its entirety.
Judge Koh lifts Galaxy Tab 10.1 sales injunction following Court of Appeals remand
A legal standoff ended today, as Judge Lucy Koh has dissolved the sales injunction against the Galaxy Tab 10.1 after Samsung's appeal had been remanded to her by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Judge Koh's decision is based on the jury's findings in Apple v. Samsung that the Galaxy Tab 10.1 didn't infringe on Apple's D'889 patent. If you'll recall, the judge had previously denied Samsung's motion to dissolve the injunction, having cited a lack of jurisdiction while the case was in front of the appeals court. Unsurprisingly, she decided to approve the motion once the case was kicked back to her courtroom. Whether we see the Galaxy Tab 10.1 hit the ban list again following the December 6th hearing remains to be seen, but in the meantime, perhaps you can kick back and enjoy the eye of the storm. Update: In related courtroom drama, Samsung has filed the initial courtroom documents that assert the iPhone 5 infringes on its patents. At least the company is good for its word. [Reuters]
US court: Motorola can't enforce German Xbox injunction
Motorola Mobility (now owned by Google) obtained an injunction against Microsoft in Germany that would have prevented sale or import of Xbox 360s, among other Microsoft devices earlier this summer, over H.264 video encoding technology owned by Motorola and licensed for use in MS devices. Now, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that Motorola cannot enforce the injunction.You might be asking what we asked at first. How can a US court rule on a decision made in Germany? Microsoft previously sued Motorola for breach of contract in the US, allowing the court to consider the whole matter subject to US law. "At bottom, this case is a private dispute under Washington state contract law between two U.S. corporations," the court's ruling reads.