lawsuits
Latest
Apple pays $60 million in iPad trademark dispute, makes peace with Proview
Earlier this year, iPads were flying off the shelves in China -- but not for the expected reasons. The slates were being removed from stores following an injunction granted to Shenzhen Proview Technology, a local firm that had laid claim to the iPad trademark. The injunction would later be rebuffed by a Shanghai court, resuming tablet sales while the dispute raged on. Today, Apple and Proview have come to a resolution, putting $60 million in Proview's coffers and the matter to rest. Feeling lost? Let us catch you up. Way back at the turn of the century, Proview's Taiwan branch registered the "iPad" trademark for its Internet Personal Access Device -- an all-in-one PC that wasn't unlike Apple's own iMac. Later on, Apple would purchase the worldwide rights to the name from the Taiwan branch, which presumably included Shenzhen Proview Technology's claim -- though the Chinese vice minister for the State Administration for Industry and Commerce (SAIC) would later declare Proview the trademark's rightful owner. Fast forward to today, and the two firms are finally settling. According to The New York Times, Proview had originally sought as much as $400 million, but has agreed to settle for a lesser amount to help it pay its debts. Either way, Apple seems to have already transferred the sum, according to the Guangdong High People's Court, apparently eager to put the dispute behind them.
Samsung appeals Galaxy Nexus ban, of course
In a completely expected move, Samsung today filed to appeal the preliminary Galaxy Nexus ban granted to Apple last week, moving to stay the injunction. Among other claims, Samsung is arguing that the ban is "inconsistent with the Federal Circuit's directive that market share losses must be substantial," and, as FOSS Patents puts it, "attributable to the 'infringing feature,' not just the presence of the infringing product on the market." This, of course, mirrors Samsung's appeal for the Galaxy Tab 10.1, which also had its US sales halted last week. The Federal Circuit could very well decide to stay, putting the devices back on store shelves, but until then, we imagine Sammy will be looking longingly at Posner's courtroom.
Microsoft catches a break: ITC remands Motorola case, Xbox 360 dodges at least a 2012 ban
Things were looking grim for gaming in April, when the International Trade Commission decided that the Xbox 360 violated Motorola patents and the console's US future was in doubt. The agency hasn't necessarily reversed its decision, but it just gave Microsoft a significant (and possibly permanent) reprieve. The Commission has remanded Motorola's case back to the Administrative Law Judge that gave the initial ruling, which very nearly restarts the clock: a new ruling won't come for months, and the usual review process guarantees even more of a delay even if the decision once more works in Motorola's favor. Patent suit watcher Florian Mueller is now confident that the Xbox 360 won't face any real risk of a ban in 2012, at a minimum. If the new decision doesn't clear Microsoft outright, it still pushes any ruling past a Microsoft lawsuit's trial in mid-November, when Motorola might be blocked from attempting any ban using its standards-based patents. We've rarely seen a majority or total reversal of this kind of ITC patent dispute before it reaches the appeals stage, but there's a distinct chance of that flip happening here -- especially as the ITC is using Apple's successful dismissal of an S3 Graphics victory as the judge's new template.
Apple lands preliminary ban against Samsung Galaxy Nexus in the US (update: search patent the key)
It hasn't been Samsung's best week. Just days after Judge Lucy Koh granted a preliminary ban on sales of the Galaxy Tab 10.1, she's following it up with a similar granted request on the Galaxy Nexus. Judge Koh had already signaled that she thought Apple's lawsuit over four patents might have merit, but it's only now that she's deciding the potential damage is worth halting sales of the phone until there's a final trial verdict. Samsung will no doubt try to appeal the dispute, which centers on Android 4.0's slide-to-unlock mechanism (among other elements), but there's a lot more urgency here than with the outgoing Tab 10.1: the Galaxy Nexus is still a current-generation device, and just became Google's Android 4.1 phone flagship. Samsung's odds aren't great given that Apple has already used one of the patents to give HTC grief with its imports. Update: As patent lawsuit guru Florian Mueller found, the clincher for the ban was the patent on unified search that's linked to Siri. Although Judge Koh is inclined to believe Apple's view regarding all four patents, that search patent is the one whose violation would reportedly merit more than a slap on the wrist. She's similarly convinced that Apple's patents are legitimate and likely won't be dismissed anytime soon.
Google to pay $0 in damages to Oracle, wait for appeal
After watching Judge Alsup strike down its patent and Java API infringement claims, Oracle seems to be cutting its losses, agreeing to accept $0 in damages from Google. Confused? So was the Judge, who reportedly responded to the proposal by asking, "is there a catch I need to be aware of?" No catch, but Oracle isn't giving up, stating that it's taking its case to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. If successful, the appeal could put the two firms back in Alsup's courtroom, perhaps asking for somewhere between the previously proposed $32.3 million and today's sum total of zilch. We'll let you know when the drama comes around again.
Kodak sues Apple for allegedly interfering with patent sales, has little nostalgia for your QuickTake
Kodak may have recently obtained clearance to sell some patents and help dig itself out of bankruptcy, but it wants to be extra-certain Apple is nowhere near potential buyers if a deal goes down. The former camera maker is suing Apple in hopes of making the former collaborator drop challenges to the ownership of 10 imaging patents from the early 1990s, when the two were still buddy-buddy enough to design the QuickTake camera line together. Claims by Apple and patent transfer recipient FlashPoint Technology are purportedly just attempts to stall any patent sale as long as possible and spook buyers away, forcing Kodak to make some hard decisions about its own lawsuits. That's not to say Kodak is a doe-eyed innocent here: Apple has accused Kodak of trying to sweep any patent disputes under the rug with bankruptcy as the pretext. Although the lawsuit is just one part of a larger story, it could more definitively answer whether or not Kodak has enough bullets left in its patent gun. [Image credit: Mikhail Shcherbakov, Flickr]
Judge puts Apple vs. Motorola hearing back on deck, asks the two to put up or shut up
Well, we did ask you to "tune in next week." Just seven days after he tentatively dismissed one of Apple's patent lawsuits against Motorola, Judge Richard Posner has given both sides a chance to prove their cases are worthwhile in a hearing on June 20th. As both sides are claiming damages, Posner wants them to explain if and how they're entitled to a payout should they win, including the possibility of a modest royalty instead of lump sums. Motorola is getting extra scrutiny since it's using standards-based patents that have drawn flak from lawmakers -- it will likely have to say how it thinks FRAND (fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory) licensing requirements for its 3G patent fit into its claims. The judge clearly warns that progress is contingent on Apple and Motorola meeting legal standards; if they fall short, it's not likely they'll get a third chance. Any success will revive the possibility of preliminary product bans, though, and that's something that most won't find something to cheer about.
Kodak can't dismiss Apple's claims on patents, gets clearance to sell those patents regardless
Apple might have been denied a lawsuit against Kodak while the former camera maker is in bankruptcy, but that hasn't kept it from winning in court. A Manhattan judge has tossed a Kodak attempt to dismiss Apple's claims that it, not Kodak, owns 10 of those patents through collaborative work back in the QuickTake days. The ruling explicitly clears Kodak to sell the patents to the highest bidder and gives it a quicker path to recovery. However, the compromise also sends a warning to any potential buyers that Apple might have a stake in patents that change hands -- a decision that will either push Kodak to set some money aside or risk sticking a potential buyer with the bill. While who owns what is still up for debate, Kodak likely isn't eager to have another Sword of Damocles over its head that risks scaring away much-needed patent buyers. [Image credit: Pittaya Sroilong, Flickr]
FTC tells ITC that bans over standards-based patents aren't kosher, looks warily at Motorola and Samsung
Most of the scrutiny over abuse of standards-based patents has come through European Union investigations of Motorola and Samsung. That attention might come to the US if the Federal Trade Commission has its way. It just sent a letter to the International Trade Commission arguing that companies should be blocked from landing bans if they base their disputes on standards. These kinds of blockades "deter innovation" and spur companies to try for much more of a cash windfall from a patent than it's really worth, the FTC argues. The letter doesn't directly accuse anyone of getting their fingers dirty, but there's little doubt that it's referring to Motorola (now part of Google) and Samsung: their varying ITC disputes against Apple and Microsoft are often based around standards patents for technologies like 3G and H.264 video, which aren't supposed to demand legal action except as a last resort. An angry FTC missive doesn't constitute a formal investigation that would actively worry either Motorola or Samsung, but it certainly fires a warning shot across the bow.
Apple calls for an early ban on Samsung Galaxy S III, isn't amused by S Voice
Samsung might have been right when it said lawyers didn't design the Galaxy S III, because it's in legal hot water again. Apple has moved to add the new Android 4.0 flagship to the same request for a preliminary US ban that would stop the Galaxy Nexus. Cupertino believes the Galaxy S III violates at least two patents, one the data tapping patent that's also being leveled against HTC and the other a unified search patent that covers Siri; not surprisingly, Apple isn't keen on that strangely recognizable S Voice interface. A hearing was already scheduled for June 7th and is now taking on a new sense of urgency, at least in Apple's mind: it's arguing that the rumored nine million pre-orders (still unconfirmed) are evidence of the potential damage if the US court lets the dispute slide. Samsung has already said that the injunction call won't affect its rapidly approaching US launches. The company had better hope it's right, or it risks disappointing a lot of early pre-order customers.
Oracle sues Lodsys to squash its patents, deals in ironic reversals of fortune
Lodsys has been facing an increasing backlash ever since it began suing left and right to scrape money from developers over patents, including countering lawsuits from some heavy hitters. Its stiffest opposition might have just lined up in the form of Oracle, however. The database behemoth is hoping to render four of Lodsys' patents invalid and prevent it from threatening further lawsuits against companies that use Oracle's technology, such as current target Walgreens. The lawsuits are focused more on web chats than on the in-app purchasing that has put more than a few mobile app developers in jeopardy, although it might help EA or Rovio at ease knowing Lodsys might be defanged. Oracle certainly isn't mincing any words in its accusations: it out-and-out accuses Lodsys of being a patent troll that profits from technology it didn't invent and will never use. Strong rhetoric against patent lawsuits won't guarantee Oracle a victory in court, but it certainly creates a minor degree of irony for a company that unsuccessfully sued Google over patents inherited through an acquisition.
Cisco sues TiVo to nullify four DVR patents, claims TiVo's just a big meanie
TiVo is known for being more than a bit aggressive in claiming patent rights for its DVRs, and Cisco has apparently had the last straw. Scientific Atlanta's owner has sued TiVo this week in an attempt to negate four patents that TiVo is allegedly using to bully Cisco and other set-top box makers. As long as those patents are active or usable against others, TiVo will refuse to give a fair license, Cisco says -- leaving competitors with little choice but to either agree to a costly settlement or risk a ban. Before championing Cisco as the underdog, remember that it's likely counting on a large patent library as a Sword of Damocles over TiVo's head that could fall if TiVo decides on a countersuit. Regardless of the strategic maneuvering, there's no doubt that Cisco is hoping to avoid a lawsuit on the scale of the epic-length EchoStar case.
French court rules Google isn't liable for YouTube bootlegs of TF1 TV shows
France typically hasn't been kind to Google. Today, though, it's cutting some important slack. A court has ruled that the search firm can't be held liable when YouTube members upload clips of their favorite football matches or movies from local network TF1. As in a case involving Dailymotion last year, the judge saw YouTube as just the host for others' videos rather than having any hand in producing the content itself. Not only does the decision let Google off the hook for a possible €141 million ($177 million) fine, it prevents the company from having to pre-screen every video that might be visible in France -- a difficult challenge for a company that takes 72 hours of new video every minute. Google is still facing less-than-cordial attitudes towards its copyright enforcement in other countries, including a zombie Viacom lawsuit in the US, but it now has some extra ammunition if it wants to cite a precedent. [Image credit: Premiere]
Jury issues verdict in Android suit, finds that Google doesn't infringe Oracle patents
It appears that the jury has come to a conclusion in the Oracle v. Google trial, determining that Android does not infringe Oracle patents. Judge William Alsup of the US District Court for Northern California exonerated the search giant following a trial that lasted three weeks, ruling that Google did not infringe on six claims in US Patent RE38,104, along two claims in US Patent 6,061,520. Jurors were dismissed following today's ruling, with the trial's damages phase reportedly set to begin on Tuesday. According to The Verge, the jury did determine that Google was responsible for two counts of minor copyright infringement, relating to the order of Java APIs and several lines of rangeCheck code, which could be matched with a maximum penalty of $150,000 for each count. Regardless, it appears that the lawsuit, which dates back to 2010, when Oracle filed against Google for copyright and patent infringement related to Sun's Java code, could finally be coming to a close.
Samsung chief: we're open to a cross-licensing deal with Apple, but 4G chip shortage might last until the fall
The at times very heated legal battle between Apple and Samsung might be softening just a bit ahead of truce talks on May 21st. Samsung's mobile head JK Shin just left Seoul for the mediated discussions saying there were still "several negotiation options" on tap, including the possibility of cross-licensing patents. He warned that there was still a "big gap" between the two sides, and we'd tend to agree -- neither Apple nor Samsung is exactly backing off just yet. However, it's a definite shift in language from March, when Shin was vowing "no compromise," and it parallels Apple CEO Tim Cook's own disdain for lawsuits. We just wouldn't bet money on the two singing "Kumbaya" this week. In same breath, Shin added that an ongoing 4G chipset shortage wasn't letting up: he didn't see things getting better until the start of the fourth quarter, or October for us common folk. That's a problem for Samsung's phones and tablets most of all, of course, and in a dire case could see LTE-packing American Galaxy S III variants rely on other vendors' chips to stay on the 4G bandwagon. There's also a chance of a ripple effect on other companies that want Samsung's parts, but short of getting a peek at Samsung's inner workings, we won't know the full impact for awhile yet.
Apple, HTC ordered by judge to sit down, try and make nice on August 28th
There's a trend starting to emerge of judges wanting Apple to talk settlements with others rather than duke it out in the courtroom. Just two weeks after Apple and Samsung were steered towards talking about a potential deal, a Delaware court has ordered Apple and HTC to meet on August 28th in the hopes that they could shake hands and put an end to an increasingly hectic legal battle under the eyes of a mediating judge. Whether or not that happens is very much up in the air. Apple CEO Tim Cook has said he's not a fan of lawsuits, but he hasn't showed indications that he would take legal action off the table just yet. Likewise, HTC is no doubt eager to eliminate phone shipping delays stemming from Apple's court wins, but the lack of immediate pressure and the hopes of winning countersuits might lead it to hold off. Still, if the court's ideal vision of the world comes to pass, you could see HTC's Cher Wang shopping in an Apple Store without staff giving her the evil eye. [Image credit: mobile01]
Stargate Worlds is not resting in peace as new lawsuit emerges
Travel back two years to when Cheyenne Mountain Entertainment was filing for bankruptcy and (unsuccessfully) attempting to sever ties with Gary Whiting, Chairman and CEO of the company. Stargate fans watched as their hopes for an MMO were dashed. Fast forward to present day, when Stargate Worlds appears back in the news. Unfortunately for fans, it has nothing to do with offering a sliver of hope that the game itself might also revive; instead, more lawsuits are being filed against Whiting and other Cheyenne employees. The newest lawsuit filed in Arizona includes 17 plaintiffs who accuse Whiting of misleading investors in various ways to obtain their cash. Some of the allegations leveled at Whiting include "negligent misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, common-law fraud and securities fraud"; he's also accused of issuing loans to himself from the company's funds -- money that may still be in Whiting's possession, according to Cheyenne Mountain's court-appointed receiver, Keith Bierman of Phoenix-based MCA Financial Group.
iPod owners notified of RealNetworks-related lawsuit's class action status, given chance to cash in (updated: not Real)
Remember the 2005 lawsuit over Apple's effort to keep RealNetworks' Harmony DRM off of the iPod, calling the countermeasures an abuse that locked customers into Apple's FairPlay copy protection and the iTunes Store? You're forgiven if you don't -- the complaint was filed in 2005. Even with iTunes having gone primarily DRM-free over three years ago, though, owners of iPods bought between September 12th, 2006 and March 31st, 2009 are just now getting notices that they qualify for a slice of any damages if they register and Rhapsody's former owner the class action group wins in court. Of course, there's no guarantee that RealNetworks former Rhapsody users will win and get you music money to feed your iPod, iPod classic, iPod nano or iPod touch, but unless you're planning to sue Apple yourself, there's no penalty for a legitimate claim. Update: RealNetworks has chipped in to let us know that it's "not involved in any way" with the lawsuit, which is actually an independent complaint centered around the Rhapsody users themselves. RealNetworks hasn't embroiled itself in a legal fight with Apple to date.
India launches antitrust investigation against Google
Google remains tied up in a censorship case with the Indian government, and things aren't looking rosy for the search giant in the interim period before its May 23rd court hearing. The Wall Street Journal reports that the Competition Commission of India is launching an antitrust investigation of Google to examine the company's alleged "discriminatory and retaliatory practices relating to AdWords." The antitrust probe follows a complaint from Consim Info Pvt. Ltd., an Indian web conglomerate which apparently requested that the Competition Commission step in to ensure fair competition in online advertising. The exact reach of this investigation is unclear; the commission will initially focus on AdWords, though it's keeping the door open for examining other Google services as deemed necessary. Hear that sigh? That, friends, is the sound of Google gearing up for one long Indian summer.
Apple and Samsung set to meet May 21st, hug it out over 48 hours
These two brawlers were given until July to come together and mediate over their numerous globe-spanning patent lawsuits, but it appears neither side needs to wait that long. According to Foss Patents, May 21st and 22nd have been circled on the calendar of a certain San Francisco courthouse, where Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero will attempt to arbitrate in a calm, soothing voice for two days straight. Presenting himself as a confidant who sits outside of the main litigation being conducted in San Jose, Spero has already asked both parties to open up and provide "candid" statements about the strengths and weaknesses of their own cases, as a first step towards identifying areas of compromise. Fortunately, he still has a few weeks in which to devise further cunning plans.
