patentinfringement
Latest
Supreme Court could produce meaningful patent reform in abstract software case
The US Supreme Court is wading into the battle over software patents by agreeing to hear a case between two financial firms you've likely never heard of. This comes just as the legislative arm of the government is getting ready to address the problem of patent trolls. (There's not much Republicans and Democrats can agree on, but a hatred of trolls is apparently one of them.) The hope is that both the Supreme Court and Congress will address what many see as the largest problem with the American patent system: low quality patents and frivolous law suits. Alice Corporation, which runs a derivatives market, charges that foreign currency exchange firm CLS Bank Internation violated a number of its patents relating to computer-based trading systems invented in the 1990s. The defense has argued that four of the patents in the question are invalid, and twice lower courts have agreed with them, both in March of 2011 and in May of this year. The most recent ruling, handed down by a divided appeals court, found that Alice's claims were too vague to be protected under patent law.
WiLAN loses lawsuit against Apple over cellular data patents
WiLAN has made a solid business out of suing the wireless industry over alleged patent violations, coaxing settlements out of HTC, Novatel and four other heavyweights. It won't get any money from Apple, though, as an Eastern District of Texas court has ruled that the iPhone maker didn't infringe on a WiLAN patent covering CDMA and HSPA data transmissions. The court also invalidated two claims in the patent, which makes it that much harder for WiLAN to sue others. Apple isn't completely out of the woods when the plaintiff is "reviewing its options." However, we suspect that the case doesn't have a leg to stand on -- especially not in a legal climate that's increasingly hostile toward patent trolls.
Apple changes its position on iOS VPN changes
Earlier this month, Apple posted a support document on its website with details on how settings would change for iOS users connecting to virtual private networks (VPNs). Now the company has done an about-face, updating the document to inform the public that the changes will not happen. The changes were made following a patent infringement lawsuit by VirnetX against Apple in which Apple was found to have violated a patent through the design of the popular FaceTime software. That loss in court cost Apple US$368 million, and the company made a minor change in the iOS VPN On Demand feature as a result. As Jacqui Cheng of Ars Technica explains, "The change was going to be relatively minor-devices with VPN On Demand configured to 'always' would instead behave as if they were set up to only establish a connection as needed." The latest document from Apple appears to indicate that it has come to an agreement with VirnetX and won't need to issue a software update to make the VPN changes. The document states that "Apple no longer plans to change the behavior of the VPN On Demand feature of iOS 6.1 for devices that have already been shipped. The 'Always' option will continue to work as it currently does on these devices."
Apple points out possible $85M court error in Samsung case
Legal maneuverings continue in the landmark court case between Apple and Samsung in the Northern District of California. In the latest development reported by FOSS Patents, Apple is questioning Judge Lucy Koh's decision to vacate $450 million of the original $1.05 billion award. Apple claims an error by Judge Koh would increase the number of devices included in the damage determination from 14 to 16. This would add an additional $85 million onto the judgement, bringing it up from the $600 million awarded by Koh to a new $685 million figure requested by Apple. You can read more about the legal strategy behind Apple's objection in the article on FOSS Patents. [Via Apple Insider]
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.
Google countersues BT over alleged IP networking patent violations
Google isn't letting BT's Android patent lawsuit go unanswered, even if it's taking its sweet time. Over a year after BT struck first, Google has filed a countersuit against BT that claims the provider is infringing four patents relating to IP-based conferencing and quality of service delivery. The search firm makes clear that its lawsuit is leverage for a possible truce: it's using the action as a "last resort" to fend off both BT and the patent holding companies that BT uses as proxies, according to a Google spokesperson. BT hasn't had a chance to respond -- or to be formally served, as of this writing -- but we can't imagine that a company which once sued over hyperlinks will simply agree to a stalemate.
ITC to rule on Apple's Samsung complaint August 1
Administrative Law Judge Thomas B. Pender of the International Trade Commission (ITC) has scheduled a final ruling on one of Apple's lawsuits against Samsung for August 1, 2013. The ruling in question deals with a decision made by Pender in October of 2012 finding Samsung to be in violation of a design patent and three utility patents owned by Apple. Pender had recommended that the ITC force a ban on certain Samsung products that were infringing on Apple patents, but the ITC returned two of those patents -- dealing with providing translucent images on a display and headphone plug detection circuitry -- back to Pender for him to reconsider. Florian Mueller of FOSS Patents commented that even if Pender rules in Apple's favor, it's not certain whether or not that will result in a ban on infringing Galaxy products in the US. Samsung has designed workarounds to bypass several of the violations, although Pender will have the final word on whether or not those workarounds are sufficient to keep a ban at bay. [via AppleInsider]
Apple rejects Samsung request to see iOS 6 source code
In the never-ending global legal battle between Apple and Samsung, the Korean electronics firm has been rebuffed by Apple in an attempt to see the source code for iOS 6. According to The Korea Times, Samsung argues that unless they have access to the source code, they won't know if iOS 6 infringes on its technology patents. Apple's legal representatives apparently called the demand "insane," with a Seoul Central District Court representative recalling an Apple lawyer as saying, "It doesn't make any sense. Samsung is saying that we should give up protecting our most important data." What Samsung is most interested in looking at is whether Apple infringed on its patents when iOS acquired Notification Center. As iOS users are aware, Notification Center lets users check status of things like messages, schedules and weather information by swiping down from the top of a screen. Samsung says they originally patented that feature in November of 2006, and put the feature into Samsung Galaxy smartphones and tablets before Apple did. The court hasn't yet decided whether to accept Samsung's request to see the source code.
Apple to appeal Chinese court ruling over pirated encyclopedia apps
Back in September, Apple lost a lawsuit brought by the Encyclopedia of China Publishing House. The publisher had found a pirated copy of its work on the App Store. Apple argued that it was just "running the store" and wasn't actually doing the pirating, but the court found Apple guilty since it had profited from the sales. The result was a RMB 520,000 ($84,000) award to the publisher. While that amount seems like a mere pittance compared to Apple's pile of cash, the company feels that the ruling could set precedent and expose Apple to other lawsuits from parties who feel like their intellectual property has been infringed upon on the App Store. As such, Apple is appealing the court judgement. A report in the Jinghua Times notes that the company is expected to use the same reasoning in the appeal -- that it was just the store operator -- that it did in the lower court. [via The Next Web]
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.
Next Apple vs. Motorola court battle scheduled for October 2013
According to a report in FOSS Patents, Apple and Motorola are scheduled to meet again in a Southern California court in late 2013. The court released a timeline that includes a May 21, 2013 discovery deadline and a pretrial motion deadline of June 28, 2013. Moderated settlement talks are slated for July 15, 2013, and the case will have its final pretrial conference on October 18, 2013. The trial should begin shortly after this last pretrial meeting. FOSS Patents calls the case an "antisuit lawsuit" that aims to prevent Motorola from pursuing further litigation against Apple products that include a Qualcomm baseband chip. You can read more about the background details of the case in this post from Florian Mueller.
Japanese court: Apple did not infringe on two Samsung patents
Samsung and Apple are waging a legal battle in courts all over the world. Though the decisions in the US, UK and Germany garner most of the attention, other cases in other jurisdictions are also making their ways through their court systems. In Japan, two rulings favorable to Apple were handed down in September and October, according to a report from the Asahi Shimbun. In these cases, the Tokyo court said Apple's Japanese unit did not infringe Samsung's patents and denied the Korean manufacturer's request to ban the iPhone in Japan. The two patents in the Japanese cases cover the downloading of an app to a smartphone and the use of airplane mode to turn off a phone's cellular and wireless radios when flying. [Via AppleInsider and FOSS Patents]
Daily Update for October 15, 2012
It's the TUAW Daily Update, your source for Apple news in a convenient audio format. You'll get all the top Apple stories of the day in three to five minutes for a quick review of what's happening in the Apple world. You can listen to today's Apple stories by clicking the inline player (requires Flash) or the non-Flash link below. To subscribe to the podcast for daily listening through iTunes, click here. No Flash? Click here to listen. Subscribe via RSS
Apple sued for LED lighting in iPad 3, MacBook Pro
Another day, another lawsuit. Patently Apple reports that LED Tech of Tyler, Texas has named Apple in a patent infringement suit, claiming that the third-generation iPad and MacBook Pro are infringing products. These products use pulse-width modulation signals to drive light-emitting diodes, and LED Tech says that during the discovery process, it found that Apple willfully infringed its patents. The four patents in question all have Charles Lemaire listed as an original inventor and are surprisingly similar, all with identical wording in the "field of the invention" section stating that "This invention relates to the field of lighting, and more specifically to a method and apparatus of controlling and powering a solid-state light source such as a light-emitting diode or LED, for a portable battery-powered flashlight." It's the "solid-state light source" that's being targeted here in the Apple suit, with Home Depot being singled out for selling LED flashlights that infringe on two of the same patents. Some of the patent wording is rather generic, but Patently Apple notes that one patent in particular presents a powerful claim. We'll provide more news on this latest patent infringement lawsuit as it progresses.
iPad, iPhone sales ban delayed in South Korea
Someone at Samsung must be getting very frustrated right now. Apple was facing a ban on sales of the iPhone and iPad in South Korea after a court found that those devices infringed on patents owned by Samsung. Now a Seoul court has ruled that Apple can keep the iPhone 3GS, iPhone 4, iPad and iPad 2 on store shelves at least until the appeals process has been completed. On the other hand, Samsung's Galaxy Nexus, Galaxy Tab 10.1, Galaxy S and Galaxy S II -- all of which are also covered by the August 24 ruling -- are still on the ban list. A Samsung spokesperson told Bloomberg that the company had "no comment" about whether it would file its own request to delay the South Korean sales ban.
Oracle begins appeal process in its Java patent case against Google, Android (Update: Google too)
You should know by now that it's never truly over when tech giants resort to legal warfare over their technology, and just as it said it would, Oracle has filed an appeal of the US District Court ruling in its case against Google. In case you'd forgotten, back in May Judge William Alsup found that the structure of its Java APIs were not copyrightable so Oracle had to settle for $0 in damages over its claims that Android infringed on its patents and copyrights. FOSS Patent's Florian Mueller has a full breakdown of what he sees in the case, meanwhile we'll be preparing our fallout shelters for potential Android Armageddon... again. Update: Haven't had enough of paperwork flying back and forth? Good, because according to Bloomberg, Google has also filed an appeal in the case over the judge's decision not to set aside the jury's copyright verdict or order a new trial.
Daily Update for October 3, 2012
It's the TUAW Daily Update, your source for Apple news in a convenient audio format. You'll get all the top Apple stories of the day in three to five minutes for a quick review of what's happening in the Apple world. You can listen to today's Apple stories by clicking the inline player (requires Flash) or the non-Flash link below. To subscribe to the podcast for daily listening through iTunes, click here. No Flash? Click here to listen. Subscribe via RSS
Samsung goes after credibility of jury foreman
If you thought that the end of the Apple vs. Samsung patent infringement case was really the end, you're sadly mistaken. Yesterday saw Samsung filing a lawsuit against Apple for alleged patent infringement in the new iPhone 5, and today the Korean electronics giant is attacking the foreman of the jury, saying that he lied about his past history to get onto the jury. Foreman Velvin Hogan has provided multiple interviews since the end of the trial, and Samsung has picked apart those statements saying that his "incorrect and extraneous legal standards had no place in the jury room." In addition, Hogan didn't tell lawyers in pre-trial hearings about the time he was sued by former employer Seagate Technology -- owned partially by Samsung -- and had to file for bankruptcy. Samsung lawyers believe that he deliberately lied during jury selection, and that the only solution would be to hold a new trial. Hogan told a Bloomberg reporter that he was only required to disclose litigation he was involved with during the past 10 years, and the Seagate litigation took place in 1993. Hogan said that "I answered every question the judge asked me... [Samsung] had every opportunity to question me." Samsung has a number of other tricks up its sleeve to try to either get the judge to throw out the US$1.05 billion verdict or at least reduce it, and we're sure to see many of them arise during the next few months.
US Appeals court rules Motorola can't enforce injunction against Microsoft in Germany... again
In another face of the ever turning world of patent battles, Reuters reports Microsoft has snagged a victory over Motorola as the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in its favor today. Motorola had obtained an injunction in Germany against Microsoft products -- including the Xbox 360 and Windows 7 -- based on its h.264 patents back in May, but today the court upheld a previous decision putting enforcement on hold because of Microsoft's existing lawsuit against Moto for breach of contract. Microsoft's push to leverage its patents into licensing payouts from manufacturers of Android devices have seen the two at each other's throats since at least 2010, when the folks from Redmond lodged an ITC complaint over nine patents and followed up with another suit accusing Motorola of charging unfair license fees for its patents. Motorola fired back with its own pair of lawsuits -- all of this a year before we heard it would be acquired by Google -- and the battle was on. Whether or not this moves us any closer to any resolution remains to be seen, but at least Bavarian gaming consoles are safe, for now.
LG Display countersues Samsung over OLED patent infringement
The strained relationship between the two tentpoles of Korea's tech industry is starting to wear, now that LG Display has counter-sued its local rival over OLED patents. Earlier this month, Samsung filed for an injunction accusing its frenemy of stealing secrets, but LG is claiming instead that it's the victim. If successful, Lucky Goldstar would seek a ban on devices including the Galaxy S III, Galaxy Tab and Galaxy Note on the pair's home turf -- so, yeah, this one looks like it's going to run and run.
