litigation
Latest
Did Apple alter photos of the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 in its injunction filing?
Previously, on Apple Versus Samsung: Cupertino's finest sued Samsung for making "similar" products -- a legal spectacle that most recently culminated with an injunction blocking the sale of the Galaxy Tab 10.1 across Europe (with one exception). The case hinges on Apple's assertion that Samsung is ripping off its designs, but tech site Webwereld spotted signs that perhaps Apple's claims are exaggerated, and that the outfit might have even gone so far as to alter images of the Galaxy Tab 10.1 to suit its case. The comparison shot you see up there is lifted from page 28 of a filing made by Freshfields Bruckhaus Derringer, Apple's European lawyers. Both devices look pretty identical with an aspect ratio of 4:3 -- except in reality, the Tab has a 16:9 16:10 aspect ratio and is far narrower than Steve's magical slate. Of course, we might never know if this was actually a malicious move on Apple's part -- certainly, Samsung's legal team isn't saying anything. For now, though, if you're game to play armchair attorney, head past the break for a comparison shot of the competing tabs as we actually know and love them. [Thanks, Jack]
Spotify sued by PacketVideo for patent infringement
We imagine getting smacked with a lawsuit soon after landing Stateside isn't quite the welcome wagon Spotify had hoped for. Alas, PacketVideo isn't interested in jamming with this musical newcomer, and has instead picked a patent fight with Spotify in the Southern District of California. The patent in question is for streaming music in digital form from a central source, and it's been licensed by mobile mavens Verizon, NTT DoCoMo, and Orange. According to the complaint, PacketVideo told Spotify in May about its IP, but Spotify wasn't picking up what PacketVideo was putting down, and continued its supposedly infringing ways. Thus, the present action was filed and now PacketVideo is seeking a permanent injunction and triple damages due to Spotify's alleged willful infringement. Of course, this is only the opening salvo in what could easily become a lengthy dispute, so feel free to break out the popcorn while we wait for Spotify's response.
Samsung study finds no link between cancer and work conditions, might not be released in full
Samsung has finally wrapped up that investigation into alleged cancer risks at its chip facilities, but it might not share the details with the rest of the world. In the study, which the company commissioned last year, researchers from US-based Environ International Corp. found that cancers affecting six semiconductor employees were unrelated to any chemicals they may have been exposed to on the job. Of those six workers, four have already died and five of the families are currently pressing charges. Last month, a South Korea court determined that two of the cases could be linked to toxic chemical exposure -- a ruling that Environ's report clearly contradicts. Samsung, however, is reluctant to disclose the results in full, for fear that doing so may reveal some proprietary information. Environ's Paul Harper declined to say how much Samsung paid for the investigation, due to client confidentiality, while confirming that the research was carried out in consultation with a panel of independent experts. Semiconductor exec Kwon Oh-hyun, meanwhile, denied that the company commissioned the study in order to use it as evidence in the ongoing court case, in which Samsung isn't even listed as a defendant.
Judge denies Apple's request to speed up its suit against Samsung
Apple's lawyers in its lawsuit against Samsung are an impatient bunch. First, they asked the court for an accelerated discovery process so they could get their hands on Sammy's forthcoming products ASAP. Then they filed a motion to trim the time until trial and asked for an order shortening the time to file the briefs for that motion. Yesterday, the court told Apple to slow its roll by denying its request to compress the briefing schedule. In doing so, the judge cited Apple's knowledge of Samsung's alleged infringement for more than a year and the fact it engaged in license negotiations with the Korean company during that time -- which the court thinks undermines Jobs and Co.'s argument that they'll suffer substantial harm without a hurried hearing schedule. It's a minor ruling in the grand scheme of things, but it indicates that Apple's cries to condense the time until trial may fall upon deaf judicial ears. Looks like the folks in Cupertino may have to look to the ITC if they want the rocket docket treatment.
HTC acquires S3 Graphics and its prodigious patent portfolio, dares you to sue
Flush with cash, but not a fan of spending it on litigation? We hear you, and apparently so does HTC. The Taiwanese firm announced today it'll purchase S3 Graphics and its patent portfolio from VIA for a cool $300 million, giving the smartphone maker 265 new weapons in its IP arsenal. Also part of the deal is a perpetual license to the patents' former owner, so that the chipset manufacturer can keep cranking out silicon without fear of legal reprisal. Given HTC's competitors recently went on a giant patent shopping spree, we'd surmise that strengthening its warchest is, dare we say, quietly brilliant.
Google, MapQuest, Microsoft and Aol sued for allegedly infringing 3D mapping patent
The saga continues for Google's voyeuristic mapping service, but this time Microsoft Streetside and Aol's MapQuest 360 View may be the Bonnie to Street View's Clyde. Transcenic, Inc. is suing the tech giants for acquiring the tools necessary to offer 3D mapping by less-than-legitimate means. The Louisiana-based company alleges that all named parties borrowed, without permission, a bit from a patent it owns on a 3D cartography technology that captures spatial reference images and uses a database to navigate them on command. Google has been in hot water for its maps before, but it no doubt hopes this legal tiff ends as well as its one for trespassing, where it only paid a pack of gum's worth of damages. If you're into reading all the current legalese, check out the source for the full complaint. Meanwhile, we'll find out if Cousin Vinny's on the case. [Disclosure: Aol is the parent company of Engadget.]
Microsoft and Wistron come to terms in royalty agreement, Android and Chrome OS now targeted
We're seeing a heavy surge in Microsoft's relentless pursuit of licensing deals in light of recent patent-infringement claims. Wistron Corp, a spinoff of Acer, is the latest company to make an agreement with Microsoft in a string of lawsuits and royalty clashes that's spanned the course of two months. While we've seen Android suppliers such as Itronix and Velocity Micro come to agreements with the folks in Redmond, as well as others like Motorola and Barnes & Noble becoming courtroom fodder, this is the first time Chrome OS has been targeted. Wistron's an ODM (original design manufacturer) that supplies other companies with computers, tablets and e-readers using either Google OS, so it's not necessarily a surprise that it signed up for the Microsoft lawsuit prevention plan. Scant details are available aside from the fact that royalties will be collected as a result. Now that Chrome is involved, it not only shows that Team Ballmer isn't backing down, it appears to have even more companies in its crosshairs -- we just wonder who's next on the list. Full (albeit brief) PR after the break.
Dolby sues RIM over alleged patent infringement, seeks injunction in 7.1 surround
There's a new patent war brewing on both sides of the Atlantic, now that Dolby has filed a set of lawsuits against RIM. At issue is the audio compression technology RIM uses in its BlackBerry phones and PlayBook tablets. Dolby claims this intellectual property is protected under patents that several other smartphone makers have already licensed, and that RIM should be forced to do the same. The company's lawsuits, filed yesterday in both the US and Germany, seek financial damages and an injunction that would stop all sales of allegedly infringing products. RIM declined to comment on the suit, but we'll be sure to keep you posted as the battle unfolds. Head past the break for Dolby's press release.
Apple and Nokia patent dispute ends with license agreement, Apple payments
It's over. The patent battle between Nokia and Apple just ended not with an injunction, but with a press release citing a license agreement and payments from Apple to Espoo. The specifics of the agreement are confidential, but Nokia does say that Apple will make a one-time payment followed by on-going royalties. So, while Nokia may be having trouble selling its zombied handsets, at least its IP portfolio can help fill the coffers during the transition to Windows Phone. Read the full press release after the break.
Microsoft turns to crowdsourcing service to swat away patent trolls
We've seen the havoc that patent trolls can wreak on tech companies and Microsoft clearly wants no part of it. That's why Ballmer & Co. have joined forces with Article One Partners -- a New York-based research firm that crowdsources scientific expertise to figure out whether or not patented ideas or inventions are as innovative as they claim, based on prior art. By subscribing to Article One's new Litigation Avoidance service, Redmond hopes "to reduce risk and reduce potential litigation cost" brought by nonpracticing entities (NPEs) -- companies that collect thousands of patents, in the hopes that one may lay a golden egg. No word on how much the service will actually cost, but we're guessing it'll be worth at least a few legal headaches. Full presser after the break. [Image courtesy of Robert MacNeill]
Paypal v. Google: a tawdry tale of trade secret misappropriation
Google and its poached Paypal employees got sued for trade secret misappropriation yesterday, but we didn't know the dirty details until now. A peek at PayPal's complaint reveals there's a bit more to the story. Apparently, Paypal and Google were in talks last year to use PayPal for payments in the Android Market. Osama Bedier was in charge of those negotiations for PayPal in October of 2010, when the deal was supposed to close, but was allegedly interviewing for a mobile payment position at Google at the same time (holy conflict of interest, Batman!). The complaint claims that Bedier initially rebuffed El Goog's advances, told PayPal of the job offer and professed that he would stay, but jumped ship a month later (bringing some PayPal coworkers with him) after being recruited by Stephanie Tilenius and the almighty dollar. Once it hired Osama, Google reportedly put the brakes on the PayPal deal and created Google Wallet. Then Google, Bedier, and Tilenius got slapped with a lawsuit. A brief rundown of the legal claims awaits you after the break.
Hurt Locker lawsuit targets a record-breaking 24,583 IP addresses
It's been almost a year since the producers of The Hurt Locker filed a lawsuit against 5,000 alleged pirates suspected of distributing the film via BitTorrent. Now Voltage Pictures has updated its complaint, adding almost 20,000 IP addresses to the list of defendants. That makes it the largest file-sharing lawsuit of all time -- a crown previously held by the company behind The Expendables, according to Wired. The plaintiff has already reached agreements with Charter and Verizon to identify individual users, but no such deal with Comcast, who owns nearly half the supposedly infringing addresses. Linking those addresses with user accounts would let Voltage manage individual settlements -- probably somewhere between $1,000-$2,000 -- rather than continue legal action. All of this eerily echoes the Oscar-winning film's plot, about an adrenaline junkie who couldn't resist downloading just one more movie. Or defusing one more bomb. We're a little fuzzy on the details, but venture into TorrentFreak to scan for familiar IP addresses.
Panasonic, Yahoo, more admit defeat, sign deal with Klausner
It's easy to mock the little guy when he takes a handful of giant corporations to court. Such litigious overzealousness usually gets tangled up or tossed out altogether -- Klausner Technologies, however, is laughing all the way to the bank, with a stellar track record taking on some of tech's biggest names over the past few years. To date, the company has scored wins in visual voicemail patent battles with Apple, Google, Verizon, LG, and Vonage -- the company also struck a deal with Sprint, though presumably with less teeth-pulling. This week, Klausner added four more big wins to the list, inking deals with Panasonic, Yahoo, Qwest Communications, and Avaya in the wake of suits against the tech firms. The company still has ongoing battles with RIM and Cisco that will hopefully stay civil. We'd hate to see someone send a visual voicemail they'd regret later.
US Supreme Court says companies can force arbitration on class-acting consumers
Before today, Californian consumers were free to ignore the arbitration clause tucked in the fine print of every AT&T service contract because state law had declared them unconscionable -- which kept the courthouse doors open to class-acting consumers. However, in a ruling that no doubt pleases AT&T and others of its ilk, the highest court in the land has stripped the states of their power to so avoid arbitration with its ruling in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion. In an opinion penned by Justice Scalia (pictured), the Supremes said that the Federal Arbitration Act was passed to promote arbitration's quick and easy dispute resolution, and they couldn't have California (or any other state) contradicting the will of Congress by allowing lengthy group litigation when parties already agreed to private arbitration. That means companies are free to force customers to arbitrate their claims individually instead of joining together to file high-dollar class-action lawsuits, no matter what state laws say. Guess those large-scale litigation lawyers will have to look elsewhere to find the funds for their next Ferrari.
Barnes & Noble says Microsoft trying to make Android 'unusable and unattractive,' has a point
At last, Barnes and Noble is defending itself against the Microsoft lawsuit filed back in March claiming that B&N's Android-based "e-reader and tablet devices" are infringing upon Microsoft's IP. A portfolio strengthened significantly thanks to that little Nokia partnership. We're not going to pick apart B&N's response in detail. However, we'd like to focus on this little nugget of FUD asserted by Barnes and Noble's legal team: On information and belief, Microsoft intends to take and has taken definite steps towards making competing operating systems such as the Android Operating System unusable and unattractive to both consumers and device manufacturers through exorbitant license fees and absurd licensing restrictions that bear no relation to the scope and subject matter of its own patents. Grrrowel. But B&N does make a good point about Redmond's intentions. Microsoft has been repeating the mantra that Android is not free for awhile now. In fact, Steve Ballmer told CNN just last year that, "there's nothing free about android... there's an intellectual property royalty due on that whether [Google] happens to charge for that software or not." A tack Microsoft (and Apple) has been keen to pursue through litigation with Motorola and a licensing deal with HTC. And this is only the beginning. Android: free like a puppy. Relive Steve's immortal words in the video after the break.
Patent spar between ZTE, Ericsson escalates to courtroom showdown
Like nostrils, tensions are flaring between two powerhouses in the wireless industry. Ericsson and ZTE have chosen to trade off the role of both plaintiff and defendant, since each company is suing the other for several patent infringements. It's hard to say who the guilty party really is -- with the number of accusations flying around, it's possible everyone is at fault somehow. All we know is that Ericsson challenged its rival company to a throwdown once attempts to reach a licensing agreement failed two weeks ago. ZTE accepted the challenge and raised the stakes by filing a lawsuit of its own. It's not exactly clear what got the quarelling pair's feathers all ruffled, though it reportedly involves 4G / WCDMA / GSM network technology employed in each other's handsets. That sure narrows it down, doesn't it? At least we have a good idea of what's up for grabs: as is oftentimes the case in these types of tumultuous proceedings, the loser has to stop selling the products and services in question and fork over some cash for damages caused to the winner. Why oh why can't we all just get along? [Thanks, Alex]
Verizon and MetroPCS objections to FCC net neutrality rules dismissed in case of premature litigation
The FCC wants to put new rules in place ensuring access to the web is, like justice, blind to where a person is coming from and indifferent to where on the web he is going to. Verizon's first reaction to these new directives was to publicly decry them as overreaching, and its second was to file a lawsuit, one that was swiftly echoed by MetroPCS. Only problem with their plans? The rules haven't yet been published in the Federal Register, which renders the legal challenges from the two eager mobile carriers "incurably" premature. Such was the determination of the US Court of Appeals, which refused to make a substantive ruling and just threw the cases out due to the technicality. Verizon isn't discouraged, however, and promises to bide its time until all the dominoes have fallen into place before launching another legal attack. Hey, whatever keeps those lawyers in their fancy suits.
Same song, second verse: Microsoft sues Barnes & Noble for Android's patent infringement
We should've known this was coming when Microsoft went after Motorola for Moto's supposedly patent-infringing Android devices, and now Ballmer & Co. have their sights set on Barnes & Noble, Foxconn, and Inventec for making and selling the Nook Color. Once again, Microsoft has filed in both the ITC and the Western District of Washington Federal Court claiming that the Android OS infringes its patents, though the patents at issue have dwindled in number from nine to five this time around. Allegedly, the Nook Color is riddled with infringing bits from its tab-using web browser and web-document viewing capability to its text selection and book annotation features. Microsoft has resorted to litigation as a new means to get paid for its patents after year-long licensing negotiations with B&N bore little fruit (unlike those with HTC, who got with the licensing program). So count this as another clear message to manufacturers -- Android's open-source, but it ain't free.
Android trademark lawsuit tossed out, Google in the clear
This is just sad, in a happy way. Last week, a judge threw out Erich Specht's attempt to extort $94 million from Google, Android Inc, and Open Handset Alliance. Apparently, the court wasn't swayed by the website that Specht threw up in order to prove he was still using the mark after his company went under in 2002. The judge then punctuated the decision with a cancelation of Specht's "Android Data" trademark on grounds that he attempted to use it as a "sword" against Google and because it could create confusion with the little green bot that consumers have become so enamored with. Ouch. Hooray for legal sanity.
Digital Chocolate suing Zynga over Mafia Wars trademark
Put down that Mafia Wars Slurpee! Trip Hawkins and his company Digital Chocolate claim that one of Zynga's biggest Facebook moneymakers isn't actually owned by Zynga -- in name, at least -- and he would really like you to quit giving them credit. According to Courthouse News, Digital Chocolate seeks to have Zynga "enjoined from using the Mafia Wars name," "ordered to deliver up all Mafia Wars products," and "engage in corrective advertising costing twice what Zynga spend promoting Mafia Wars." Which means you should stop drinking that Slurpee, like, right now. Litigation is stemming from Digital Chocolate's previously trademarked mobile game of the same name, Mafia Wars, where players "must advance their characters through levels of a fictional crime syndicate by completing tasks." DC also claims that, in speaking with Zynga last year about the trademark rights, "Zynga attorneys responded with a letter promising to stop using the name." In its defense, a Zynga rep told Joystiq, "We are surprised and disappointed by Digital Chocolate's lawsuit. The timing of the action appears to be opportunistic, and we plan to defend ourselves vigorously." The United States Patent and Trademark Office lists Zynga's first filing date for a game under the name "Mafia Wars" as July 1, 2009, though no filing under that name could be located with Digital Chocolate as the applicant. Digital Chocolate has not responded to requests for comment by press time.
