PatentTroll
Latest
Apple patent troll strikes again with FaceTime lawsuit
For such a genial component of Apple's ecosystem, FaceTime certainly attracts a lot of lawsuits from interested bodies. The latest is from Uniloc, a company with a collection of patents, a hotline to its lawyers and very little else. AppleInsider is reporting that the patent troll has filed a request for a jury trial, accusing Apple of infringing its intellectual property.
Nikola (Motors) is suing Tesla (updated)
Nikola Tesla invented alternating electrical current. Nikola Motors is a mobility company working on a hydrogen-powered semi truck. Tesla makes fully electric vehicles and last December unveiled its EV Semi. Nikola Motors is suing Tesla Motors over patent infringements, according to Electrek. Let the irony of that sink in for a moment before reading the rest of this post.
CBS is suing someone for posting a 'Gunsmoke' screenshot online
CBS is suing a photographer for copyright infringement as a means of avoiding paying a copyright infringement claim the photographer filed against the TV network. Yes, you read that correctly. Jon Tannen posted a screenshot of the old show Gunsmoke to one of his social media accounts, according to Torrent Freak and when CBS caught wind, it filed a $150,000 lawsuit (PDF) citing:
Apple ordered to pay $440 million to FaceTime patent troll
VirnetX's seemingly endless FaceTime patent lawsuit against Apple is winding down... sort of. An Eastern District of Texas court has denied all of Apple's motions to end the case in a non-infringement ruling or retrial, leaving the tech giant with a final judgment that orders it to pay VirnetX $439.7 million. That's much more than the $302.4 million Apple was told to pay last year. VirnetX, widely considered a patent troll, is unsurprisingly "elated" at having won its third jury battle against Apple. However, it can't really rest on its laurels -- that judgment isn't as final as it seems at first blush.
Federal court steps in to protect podcasts from patent troll
The venerable podcast is the bastion of broadcasters big and small, from major news outlets to DIY publishers. But, for the last few years, this hallowed ground has come under threat from patent troll Personal Audio -- which has tried to sue podcasters of all sizes. It claims it created the concept of the podcast. Thankfully, the U.S. Court of Appeals disagrees. A three-judge panel of the court just affirmed a previous decision rendering Personal Audio's patent invalid. The ruling declares the company was trying to protect an invention that already existed. Meaning podcasters and listeners can rest easy, for now.
IBM somehow got a patent for an Out-Of-Office email system
A month and a half ago, the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) granted IBM Patent 9,547,842, which is an email system designed to automatically send messages informing inquiring bodies that said person is absent from their physical place of work... It's an Out Of Office email system. They patented OOO.
Apple loses FaceTime patent retrial, ordered to pay $302.4 million
In the continuing saga of Apple vs. VirnetX, Reuters reports that a federal jury in the Eastern District of Texas has ruled in favor of VirnetX, ordering Apple to pay $302.4 million in damages. This particular case has been going on since 2010, and in the last verdict, a jury ruled Apple owed more than $600 million to the "non-practicing entity (read: patent troll) over technology used in FaceTime. However, in August the appeals court threw that ruling out, saying jurors may have been confused by references to the first iteration of this case.
Startup uses algorithms to fund civil lawsuits
It won't shock you to hear that many companies see lawsuits as opportunities for profit. Patent trolls base their entire businesses around it, after all. And now, they may use technology to help that happen. Legalist, a young startup, is trying to build on the litigation finance world (already a $3 billion field) by using algorithms to determine when a company should invest in someone else's lawsuit. The software compares a suit against 15 million historical cases to calculate the likelihood that a lawsuit will succeed. If the action is likely to pan out, Legalist funds the case in return for a cut (as much as 50 percent) of either the damage awards or the settlement.
Apple won't have to pay a patent troll $625 million after all
Patent troll VirnetX has won multiple patent lawsuits against Apple, including a recent $625 million judgement over FaceTime and VPN tech. However, it appears it overplayed its past success during that trial. After Apple appealed, federal Judge Robert Schroeder threw out the judgement and demanded a retrial. The reason? VirnetX inappropriately mentioned the previous verdict, possibly prejudicing the jury against Apple.
Samsung could help Apple avoid large patent payout
A review board at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has invalidated a claim against Apple with help from rival Samsung. The two firms are normally on opposite ends of the rope when it comes to a tug of war over patents. The story began about a year ago, when a Texas court ordered Apple to pay $533 million to holding firm SmartFlash, after it argued Apple's iTunes infringes three of its patents. SmartFlash's claims related to technologies for payments, storage and copy protection. It's the payment patent that the review board has dismissed, stating that it covers a "fundamental economic practice long in existence in commerce."
One of the most profitable patent trolls has been defanged
Uniloc, perhaps best known as Patent Troll in Chief, suffered a pretty devastating blow today. The company has long asserted that its "software activation" patent that's beguiled everyone from Microsoft (to the tune of $388 million) to Electronic Arts gives it clearance to sue just about anyone who uses a form of online authentication for software. Until now, according to the Kansas City Business Journal. The Patent Trademark and Appeals Board has ruled that Uniloc's patent number 5,490,216 is invalid via an inter partes review (IPR). Essentially an IPR is a way for inventors to challenge a patent without getting federal courts involved.
Apple ordered to pay $625 million in FaceTime patent lawsuit
VirnetX has been a thorn in Apple's side (and a good chunk of the tech industry) for the better part of this decade. It first sued Apple in 2010 over the alleged use of virtual private network (VPN) patents in FaceTime video chats, and has been successful enough in court to wring hundreds of millions of dollars out of the folks in Cupertino. And today, it's striking again: a court has ordered Apple to pay $625 million dollars for purportedly using VirnetX's security tech in both FaceTime and iMessage. That's actually more than the $532 million VirnetX had wanted, and a huge windfall for a company that has little business outside of lawsuits (aka a patent troll).
Texas judges make it harder to fight patent trolls
Federal courts might have made it harder for patent trolls to sue over vague ideas, but the Eastern District of Texas (the trolls' preferred venue) just put the ball back in their court. Some judges in the region now demand that the targets of these lawsuits get permission before they file motions to dismiss cases based on abstract concepts. If the defendants don't show "good cause" for needing those motions, the lawsuits go ahead -- and historically, that means that the trolls either win their cases or extract settlements from companies unwilling to endure the costs of a prolonged legal battle.
Podcasts are safer after the EFF helps gut a patent troll
Personal Audio has been threatening the podcast world for a while -- the longtime patent troll claims that it invented the concept of podcasting, and has insisted that some bigger productions (such as Adam Carolla's) either cough up licensing money or face lawsuits. You may not have to worry about your favorite series going off the air in the future, though. US patent officials have nixed some of the core claims of Personal Audio's "podcasting patent" after the Electronic Frontier Foundation pointed out podcast-like shows that were running before the patent even existed. Some aspects of episodic online audio are just too obvious to be patentable, according to the finding.
Apple ordered to pay $532.9 million to an iTunes patent troll (update)
Despite attempts to curb patent trolls, at least some of them are getting lucky -- and this week, one got very lucky. A Texas court has ordered Apple to pay a whopping $532.9 million to Smartflash, a holding company which sued over claims that iTunes (specifically its copy protection, payment systems and storage) violates its patents. The Cupertino crew allegedly abused the inventions on purpose, in part because one of its execs was briefed on them over a decade ago.
Google, Dropbox, Canon and others team up to disarm future patent trolls
Patent litigation from non-participating entities (casually known as "patent trolls") is the bane of a technology firm's legal department. Fighting patent lawsuits from firms that subsist completely on licensing and legal action is a frustrating waste of resources, and one that often stifles innovation indirectly. Now, a new partnership between Canon, Dropbox, Google, Asana, SAP and Newegg hopes to cut off would-be patent trolls at the knees. It's called the License on Transfer Network (LOT), and it's a patent-licensing agreement that neuters a patent's potential for litigation before prospective trolls can exploit it.
White House offers new web tools to help fight patent trolls
The White House isn't relying solely on legislative measures to try and curb patent trolls; it's also giving the trolls' targets some online resources to defend themselves. To start, it just launched a USPTO website that tells victims what to do if they're served with infringement notices or subpoenas. Meanwhile, a future effort will crowdsource prior art to thwart suits over patents that should never have been granted in the first place. There's still more work ahead in the legal realm, including pro bono defense lawyers and technology training for patent examiners. However, the new online tools just might give smaller companies the know-how to fight back against trolls that prey on their lack of information.
Judge tosses out Apple's motion regarding Lodsys
Apple licensed US Patent #772,078 from original owner Intellectual Ventures to allow for in-app purchases of iOS apps. The patent, now owned by Lodsys, covers "Methods and systems for gathering information from units of a commodity across a network." Lodsys started suing iOS developers for patent infringement and Apple filed a motion to intervene in patent infringement lawsuits in 2011. Patent trolls -- also known as Patent Assertion Entities ("PAEs") -- are "firms with a business model based primarily on purchasing patents and then attempting to generate revenue by asserting the intellectual property against persons who are already practicing the patented technologies," according to the FTC. According to Joe Mullin from Ars Technica, "Lodsys became one of the most-scorned patent holders in 2011, by making seemingly small cash demands (just 0.575 percent of your revenue, please!) against small app makers, who it said were infringing its patents that cover in-app purchasing and upgrades." Ars Technica further states that, "the East Texas judge [US District Judge Rodney Gilstrap] overseeing Lodsys' systematic patent attack on app developers has refused to even consider Apple's motion." This means that Lodsys is now free to "threaten developers for months, and perhaps even years, to come," according to Mullin. An amicus brief, which is loosely an offer to assist in understanding an issue being handled by a court by parties with a strong interest in the issue (but not part of the court action) was filed by the App Developers Alliance and the Electronic Frontier Foundation. The brief states: "Lodsys's pattern of sending out demand letters, suing a seemingly random sampling of app developers and then settling with those app developers, promises that those developers' claims of a right to use the technology in question will never be heard. The resulting uncertainty leaves developers in limbo. In fact, there have been reports that app developers are indeed pulling apps out of the US markets entirely. Charles Arthur, App Developers Withdraw from US as Patent Fears Reach 'Tipping Point', The Guardian (July 15, 2011)." Mullin recounts some of the pending suits and companies involved, and provides more detail on how those companies are handling the cases. "Apple's argument that the Lodsys patents are already paid for could have been a clean and effective way to shut down much of the Lodsys patent campaign." It looks like that isn't going to happen anytime soon. Related Stories FTC publishes a long list of questions it wants to ask "patent trolls", Ars Technica, 9/27/13. FTC Seeks to Examine Patent Assertion Entities and Their Impact on Innovation, Competition, FTC, 9/27/13. Lodsys offers to settle patent dispute with fortunate developer, TUAW, 8/8/13. Apple allowed to intervene in Lodsys patent case, TUAW, 4/13/12. Lodsys now going after apps with More Apps buttons, TUAW, 7/13/11. Apple files motion to intervene in Lodsys suit, TUAW, 6/10/11.
The FTC wants your thoughts on proposed patent troll investigation
Here's a question. Forced to decide, would you rather have a patent troll breathing down your neck, or cuddle up with an entity just as ghoulish that's living under a bridge? The FTC wants your thoughts on the matter, even if its description isn't quite so... colorful. The agency is putting out a call for public commentary on its proposed investigation of patent assertion entities, which have come under federal scrutiny as of late. Key to the proposal, the FTC would request information from 25 patent trolls to learn non-public information such as their corporate structure, patent holdings, means of acquiring patents, the cost of enforcing them and the earnings that the trolls generate. Accordingly, the agency hopes to "develop a better understanding of how they impact innovation and competition." For comparison sake, the FTC also proposes an information request from approximately 15 companies in the wireless communication sector, which would include manufacturers and other licensing entities. You're more than welcome to answer the bridge question in the comments, but if you want to contact the FTC directly, you'll find everything you need after the break. [Image credit: Tristan Schmurr / Flickr]
Apple sued over Find my iPhone
Well this is certainly a fitting story given a recent report that Apple remains the top target for patent trolls. GigaOM is reporting that a nonpracticing entity based out of Texas is suing Apple, alleging that services such as Find my Friends and Find my iPhone infringe upon their patents. The company in question is called Remote Locator, and per usual, information regarding ownership interests in the company and the patent itself are hard to come by. Notably, Apple isn't the only one being targeted by this particular patent as several other suits have been filed against Google and carriers as well. The invention itself is US Patent 5548637, which covers a method for "locating personnel and objects in response to telephone inquiries," and describes a system for using infrared transmitters to route calls to individuals or objects in large buildings like a hospital. Remote Locator is requesting a jury trial, and with respect to damages, is seeking an injunction and payment for past infringement. Patent trolls in recent years have become an increasing nuisance in the tech sphere, and with Apple holding billions upon billions in the bank, it makes sense why they're often targeted. Unfortunately, though, patent trolls have also taken to suing and arguably shaking down small-time developers who often lack the resources to adequately defend themselves against what are often frivolous lawsuits. The flurry of lawsuits filed by Lodsys in recent memory serves as a stark example. Thankfully, the Obama administration has taken notice of the patent troll phenomenon and has proposed some new guidelines that will hopefully serve to lessen the impact of patent trolls. All that said, we'll keep an eye on this case and see how Apple responds.
