sue
Latest
Quanta sues AMD, claims it sold defective products
Yikes. Quanta -- also known as the planet's largest contract maker of laptops -- has just slapped a nasty lawsuit on the world's second-largest chipmaker. According to Bloomberg, Quanta is alleging that AMD and ATI sold chips that "didn't meet heat tolerances and were unfit for particular purposes." Those chips were then used in NEC-labeled machines, and caused them to "malfunction" in some regard. No big deal? Hardly. In the complaint, Quanta states that it has "suffered significant injury to prospective revenue and profits," and it's seeking a jury trial and damages for good measure. As if that weren't harsh enough, the suit also claims "breach of warranty, negligent misrepresentation, civil fraud and interference with a contract." When pinged for comment, AMD's spokesman, Michael Silverman stated: "AMD disputes the allegations in Quanta's complaint and believes they are without merit. AMD is aware of no other customer reports of the alleged issues with the AMD chip that Quanta used, which AMD no longer sells. "In fact, Quanta has itself acknowledged to AMD that it used the identical chip in large volumes in a different computer platform that it manufactured for NEC without such issues." Somewhere, Intel has to be smirking.
German court's preliminary ruling says Samsung's Galaxy Tab 10.1N isn't aping the iPad
Round a few corners, a bit of nip-tuck and a tossed-on N. Oh, and probably just being sick and tired of the whole ordeal. We're assuming that's the recipe for getting the Cupertino-sourced gorilla off of Samsung's back, as a judge at the district court in Düsseldorf, Germany just issued a preliminary ruling that effectively clears the Galaxy Tab 10.1N from claims that it too mimics the iconic iPad. If you'll recall, the court blocked German sales of the original Tab 10.1 back in September, following Apple's arguments that Sammy's tab just looked too much like the iPad. Not surprisingly, the subtly-redesigned Tab 10.1N still drew fire from Apple's lawyers, but it's looking like they'll be riding home on the losing train this go 'round. A final verdict is expected on February 9th, of which we're sure you'll be resting uneasily on the edge of your seat to hear the result of. Courtroom fever -- catch it!
Samsung's Won-Pyo Hong: Galaxy Nexus wasn't designed just to skirt Apple patents
Well, so much for that. Samsung's Executive Vice President of Product Strategy -- Won-Pyo Hong -- didn't say a whole heck of a lot on stage here at AsiaD, but he did clarify one thing near the end of his interview: he has 'no idea' where those earlier rumors came from. With "those rumors" regarding the matter of designing the Galaxy Nexus specifically to avoid patent troubles with Apple. According to Dr. Hong, the actual development of the Galaxy Nexus started with Google before the initial lawsuit hammer fell between the two outfits, making it impossible for the suits being flung back and forth today to have any impact on that decision.We believe it. These phones are designed months -- if not years -- in advance, and the actual process from concept to shipping takes a relative eternity. Furthermore, the original source (linked in More Coverage) only tied the quotes from Sammy's Shin Jong-kyun loosely to the Galaxy Nexus, and we're guessing that Samsung takes a look at all potential legal implications before shipping any product. In other words, the company's probably doing everything it can -- including paying Microsoft for every single Android device sold -- to avoid these nasty legal battles, but the Galaxy Nexus wasn't engineered just to sidestep another fight with the lawyers in Cupertino. And now you know.Update: In response to a question from Joanna Stern regarding Samsung's rethinking of hardware and software (mainly TouchWiz) in order to lessen its chances of being sued in the future, Dr. Hong did muster a very vague affirmation that a newer build of TouchWiz will eventually surface, and that it'll almost certainly be tweaked in a way that'll cause Apple's lawyers to salivate less.
Apple sues Samsung in Japan over alleged iPhone, iPad patent violations
It looks like Apple's patent spat with Samsung has now reached the land of the rising sun. Reuters is reporting that Cupertino is taking the Korean manufacturer to court in Japan, over alleged patent violations pertaining to the iPhone and iPad. Japan's Kyodo news agency first reported the news, citing unnamed insiders who claim that Apple is looking to halt sales of Samsung's allegedly patent-infringing Galaxy S smartphones, while seeking ¥100 million (about $1.3 million) in damages. According to the sources, the first hearing was held in a Tokyo District Court on Wednesday, though a court spokesman would not comment on the pending case. Neither Samsung nor Apple have commented on the suit and details on the patents in question remain unclear, but we'll keep you posted as we find out more. Update: Ryuji Yamada, CEO of Japanese provider NTT DoCoMo, is now saying that Apple's lawsuit will not have any effect on next month's Galaxy Tab launch. "We have heard from Samsung that there will be no obstruction to sales," Yamada confirmed.
Judge shoots down Personal Audio's second Apple infringement case
Talk about swift justice. It's been less than a week since we reported on Personal Audio's second infringement suit against Apple, and an East Texas judge has already put an end to the litigation. In a statement regarding the company's complaint that the iPad 2, iPhone 4, and latest generation iPods infringed on the same patents put forth in its initial suit, Judge Ron Clark said the $8 million already awarded to the plaintiff should do just fine. He went on to deny the company's request for a second trial. It may not be the last we hear of Personal Audio, but it is a refreshing change of pace from the usual goings on in Eastern District courtrooms.
Personal Audio sues Apple again, targets iPhone 4, iPad 2 and newer iPods
Thought the Personal Audio / Apple brouhaha was over? Think again, because everyone's favorite patent licensing company is back, hitting Cupertino with another suit. You'll recall an earlier ruling by a federal jury in Eastern Texas found the CE maker guilty of infringing upon PA's playlist-related IP with an assortment of older iPods. This new filing alleges that newer Apple devices, like the iPhone 4, iPad 2 and modern day iPods -- which weren't part of the original 2009 case -- also violate that same IP, in a move we'd surmise serves to pad Personal Audio's coffers. Not like Apple's apt to feel the pinch should Personal Audio snag another victory, but hey....
Apple coughing up $8 million to Personal Audio in iPod playlist settlement
Ah, the Eastern District of Texas. Home to tumbleweeds, free range cattle and boatloads of patent trolls. Personal Audio, a patent licensing company with a highfalutin' facility in Beaumont, Texas has become the latest outfit to claim victory over a major CE company, with Apple being asked to hand over $8 million to settle a tiff involving iPod playlists. Bloomberg reports that a federal jury in the Lonestar state found that Cupertino's iPod players infringed on patents for "downloadable playlists," right around two years after Personal Audio initially filed the claim for a staggering $84 million. We're told that the inventions cover "an audio player that can receive navigable playlists and can skip forward or backward through the downloaded list," and while Apple unsurprisingly stated that it wasn't actually using those very inventions, that hasn't stopped the courts from disagreeing just a wee bit. Now, the real question: are Sirius XM, Coby and Archos -- also named in the original suit -- going to be facing similar circumstances?
Apple seeks preliminary injunction on Infuse 4G, Galaxy S 4G, Droid Charge, and Galaxy Tab 10.1
Drama. Rather than leaving well enough alone -- at least long enough for its lawyers to properly enjoy the Independence Day weekend -- Apple has seemingly kicked its ongoing legal battle with Samsung up a notch. According to a filing discovered by FOSS Patents, the perturbed in Cupertino have filed a motion for a preliminary injunction with the US District Court for the Northern District of California. Interestingly, the motion hones in on just four devices: the Infuse 4G, Galaxy S 4G, Droid Charge, and Galaxy Tab 10.1. It's a pretty bold move on Apple's part -- if this thing holds, and it's determined that the aforesaid products may well indeed be infringing on Apple's rights, Sammy could be forced to yank those products from US shelves within a couple of months. If it falls through, however, Apple's entire case will likely take a serious hit. We'd ponder why everyone can't just get along, but at this point, we're guessing the act of forgiveness has become a foreign concept for both parties.
iCloud Communications sues Apple for obvious reasons
You probably know the drill by now -- Cupertino introduces a new product with a name that ostensibly belongs to someone else, and for better or worse that someone decides to take Apple to court. Today, it's iCloud Communications charging out of the left corner to sock Apple's iCloud square in the wallet. Arizona-based iCloud Communications appears to be a VoIP equipment and service provider, though in court documents it claims to be a cloud computing company as well, and says that it's been using the term iCloud (and the above logo) to sell such services since 2005. It's asking the court to destroy all of Apple's iCloud marketing materials, pay damages and even invalidate the iCloud trademark that Apple bought from Xcerion -- the only registered iCloud trademark so far -- but what's probably going to actually happen here is a nice little settlement out of court. We'll let you know if there's any reason to break out the popcorn. [Thanks, Tamaine M.]
ChaCha sues HTC for Facebook phone trademark infringement
Facebook phone rumors were swirling for quite awhile, then HTC answered a question that seemingly nobody asked by delivering unto the world a phone with a dedicated Facebook button... the ChaCha. In what can only be considered a stroke of luck for all of humanity, the Taiwanese handset maker has been granted the opportunity to rectify its naming gaffe courtesy of a trademark infringement suit brought by ChaCha Inc. That company trademarked its name and logo in 2007 for its text and voice internet search engine services and is (rightfully) displeased with the HTC's choice of names for its Facebook-focused handset. ChaCha doesn't want mobile users thinking that it's endorsed the phone, and given that the company's bread and butter is providing mobile search, such confusion seems likely. ChaCha is asking for money damages and a permanent injunction to prevent the phone from going to market with its name. That's just fine with us -- if only the courts could grant an injunction to remove that Facebook button.
Motorola dragged into court for Xoom trademark infringement
To Xoom or not to Xoom, that is the question -- and Xoom Corporation says Motorola needs to ditch the name of its new Honeycomb-laden slate. That's right, Xoom has filed a trademark infringement lawsuit asking for monetary damages, a temporary restraining order, and / or a preliminary injunction to spoil Moto's release party for its new tablet. In case you're curious, Xoom (the company) does seem to predate the slate by a good bit: it's been operating its online payments business under that name and has owned the www.xoom.com domain since 2003. Xoom got a registered service mark for its money transfer and e-payment services in 2004. But what about that Xoom trademark Motorola filed last year for mobile computers and related accessories? Traditionally, courts give priority to the first user to register a mark, so Xoom Corp. certainly has a case here, but we're not so sure they'll be able to prove that consumers are likely to be confused. To find out, the court will look at multiple factors to determine the likelihood of confusion: the strength of Xoom's mark, the similarities between the two marks, the proximity of Xoom's services and software to Moto's tablet in the consumer marketplace, evidence of actual customer confusion, and the similarity of the marketing channels used by Moto and Xoom. Honestly, we can't see Moto marketing the Xoom tablet to anyone looking for online payment services (aside from the occasional Android Market purchase) so Xoom Corp. has a tough road to hoe, but stranger things have happened -- we'll see how it goes.
Monster sues Fanny Wang, purveyor of fine knockoff headphones
Monster Cable's reign of legal terror has resulted in several things over the years -- a tiff with the Chicago Bears over the "Monsters of the Midway" nickname, a lawsuit against a minigolf company, and eventually even a hard ban on the pages of Engadget -- but we can't say we ever expected the target of a Monster lawsuit to try and use the case for cheap free publicity. Well, surprises come in all forms: the delightfully-named Fanny Wang is now proudly proclaiming that it's being sued for copying Monster's Beats headphones and trying to score some free good press -- even though it appears that Fanny's headphones are indeed a fairly close copy of Beats. (Just check the image above.)To give you an idea of the ridiculousness at work, Fanny's presently hosting a copy of the Beats design patent and Monster's complaint on its own website, right next to a rebuttal of the charges. Fanny claims its headphones have different packaging and minor design differences such that "no reasonable consumer would likely confuse the two," which we suppose is arguably true -- but we'd also point out that Fanny's original press release proudly proclaims that "the same sound engineer who designed the Beats by Dr. Dre acoustics tackled the Fanny Wang collection." Copy, coincidence, or crafty PR strategy? You be the judge... for now.
Street View Shocker! Google pays Boring couple $1 for trespassing
It's hardly a surprise that there's a cadre of individuals who aren't too fond of Google's seemingly omnipresent Street View fleet, but the ending of this dispute is downright absurd. Back in 2008, Aaron and Christine Boring were looking for a little excitement, and decided to find it in a courtroom; the duo sued Google for trespassing on their property while collecting photographs for Street View. According to them, Google's Street View car ignored the "No Trespassing" sign planted out front, and while they noted that they would've accepted a simple apology letter, they had no qualms pushing for damages when that wish fell upon deaf ears. The payout? A single dollar. Let's repeat that: 100 pennies. A buck. Barely enough to buy a Whopper Jr. in Portland, and definitely not enough to do so across the way in Vancouver. We suspect both parties are eager to put the whole mess behind 'em, but if you've been looking for a story to prove that America actually isn't as aimlessly litigious as the world thinks they are... well, this one ain't it.
Accused Xbox 360 modder finds case pleasantly dismissed
The case of 28-year old CSU student Matthew Crippen has come and gone. Arrested last year on Digital Millennium Copyright Act violations -- specifically, for modding Xbox 360s to enable them to play pirated games -- federal prosecutor Allen Chiu announced on the third day of trial that the government was dropping its case against him "based on fairness and justice." It's not a complete surprise: according to Wired, on the previous day (Wednesday), an undercover agent testifying against Crippen claimed the defendant used a pirated game to test a modded console in his presence. That detail, required for the prosecution's case (the use of pirated software), was never mentioned in any of the previous reports or sworn declarations, so once the judge dismissed it as evidence, the case against Crippen hit a snag. Source link's got the full, very interesting tale, but if you're patient, there's always a chance one of the Law and Orders will pick up the story in the years to come.
Shocker! WiLAN drums up another lawsuit, this time against big cable
As the saying goes, every time an iPhone is dropped, another wide sweeping patent lawsuit in the tech world sprouts up in the plaintiff-friendly US District courts of east Texas. Okay, so perhaps there's no factual basis for that, but who knows if the latest case filed by suit-happy Canadian wireless company WiLAN against Comcast, Time Warner, and Charter Communications is any more legitimate. The dispute is over US patent No. 5,661,602, which is one of the company's 970 issued or pending patents, and was awarded in 1998. It covers "hybrid multichannel data transmission systems utilizing a broadcast medium" -- a.k.a. the broadcasting of data to remote networks and computers. WiLAN has tapped their ole' favorite US law firm, McKool Smith for the case, and asserts that the big cable triumvirate is in violation of the patent, though a spokesperson for Comcast did note they had not been served with a complaint just yet. Sadly (or not-so-sadly, depending on perspective) we can't take part in the gavel swinging, but considering that WiLAN filed suit against Alcatel-Lucent, Sony Ericsson and LG last month, and sued Acer, Apple, Dell, HP, and Lenovo in April, there's plenty of evidence that this outfit's lawyers are the hardest working employees on the payroll.
Motorola slaps Microsoft with a pair of patent infringement lawsuits, says it's such a shame
Looks like Motorola's about to fight a legal battle on two fronts -- Apple on one hand, and Microsoft on the other. Microsoft fired the first shot last month with a nine-patent ITC complaint and a second salvo alleging that Motorola was charging unfair licensing fees for 802.11 WiFi and H.264 video last week, it's now Moto's turn to retaliate with a pair of legal complaints. The cellular company now claims that Redmond's infringing a total of sixteen patents with everything from Microsoft Exchange to Bing Maps to the Windows operating system itself -- as well as the aforementioned video codecs and wireless tech, of course. Moto's also determined to rub a little salt in the wound, it seems, as the company just pushed out a press release with the following statement: "It is unfortunate that Microsoft has chosen the litigation path rather than entering into comprehensive licensing negotiations, as Motorola has mutually beneficial licensing relationships with the great majority of technology companies industry-wide." PR after the break.
Apple sues Motorola right back over six patents
What, you didn't think Apple was just going to sit around and take it after Motorola first sued for patent infringement and then asked to court to declare some 20 of Cupertino's patents weren't applicable to its products, did you? Apple's fired back with two lawsuits claiming that Motorola's Android phones, including but not limited to the Droid, Droid 2, Droid X, Cliq, Cliq XT, BackFlip, Devour A555, Devour i1, and Charm, infringe a total of six multitouch and OS patents. That would be pretty much par for the course -- you sue me, I sue you -- but there are a couple interesting strategic wrinkles to note: We've only seen Apple litigate one of these patents before: #7,479,949, Touch Screen Device, Method, and Graphical User Interface for Determining Commands by Applying Heuristics. You should remember it well -- it's the patent covering scroll behavior on multitouch screens that was hyped as "the iPhone patent" and triggered a press frenzy over a possible Apple / Palm lawsuit. As we predicted at the time, that hasn't yet materialized, but old '949's gotten pretty popular: Apple's asserting it against Nokia and HTC as well. Apple might be suing over six patents in these two cases, but ultimately Apple will claiming Motorola's devices infringe a total of 26 patents -- part of Apple's defense to Motorola's 20-patent lawsuit will be to claim that Moto's in fact infringing each of those patents. That's a lot of patents across a lot of devices, and it'll just take one finding of infringement to cause a lot of pain. Apple's filed its two cases in the Western District of Wisconsin, a patent "rocket docket" that tries cases quickly and are often perceived as being plaintiff-friendly. (Part of the Apple / Nokia lawsuit is happening in this same court.) Moto's obvious next move will be to try and consolidate all these cases into a single proceeding at one court, a procedural tactic that will take likely take months. And that's just the first step. Don't expect these cases to be decided for at least a year -- probably many years -- unless Apple and Motorola decide to settle, which is always possible. Apple's now seriously engaged in litigation with the two largest Android handset makers (HTC and Motorola), largely over OS-level patents. At some point Google has to get involved, if only to indemnify its partners against further liability for using Android, and we can't help but think Apple and Google are eventually bound to face off directly. Or perhaps not -- by suing Android handset makers, Apple's essentially putting a tax on Android without having to further muddy up its complex competitor / partner relationship with Google by adding in a major lawsuit. We've added in a list of the patents after the break, if you're interested -- and we know you're interested, right? It's not like it's a beautiful Saturday afternoon or anything.
Motorola asks court to invalidate Apple patents, preempt another lawsuit
The smartphone intellectual property wars are seriously heating up, as Motorola sided with HTC this week in an effort to cover its own rear. Remember those twenty patents Apple aimed at the Taiwanese OEM? Motorola says they're no good, and is trying to get them thrown out of court -- an important tactic, because if the patents do hold water and are successfully used against HTC, Apple might turn around and sue Motorola with them too. That's because there's more at stake here than OEM phones, but Android as a whole, and as such other manufacturers that implement Android might potentially be targets as well. Oh, and don't think this is Motorola's first salvo in the arena, either -- it's also suing Apple outright to get the point across, and is similarly being targeted by Microsoft for smartphone patents of its own. We're just two guns shy of a Mexican standoff, folks.
CTIA sues San Francisco over cellphone radiation law
San Francisco may have signed cellphone radiation labels into law, but the stickers won't stick without a fight -- the Cellular Telephone Industries Association (CTIA) just filed a complain in federal district court, claiming the new law supersedes the FCC's authority to regulate radio emissions and misleads consumers into believing some phones are safer than others. As we've discussed previously, the CTIA does have something of a point. Every phone that makes it to market is rigorously tested for cell phone radiation levels, and those that pass fall below a specific 1.6 watt per kilogram threshold already. But hey, we're all for bombarding our brains with that much less radiation, as long as our calls stay connected and our text messages arrive on time. If only there were a label for that... Read the CTIA's full complaint at our more coverage link.
HannStar Display shells out $30m to settle LCD price fixing case
Another day, another company pleading guilty to their role in a massive global price-fixing conspiracy surrounding the MSRP of LCDs. The Taiwan-based HannStar Display agreed (grudgingly, we surmise) this week to cough up a whopping $30 million for its role in the scheme, marking the seventh company to "plead or agree to plead guilty as a result of the department's investigation into the LCD industry." All told, the US Department of Justice has seen some $890 million paid out and 17 executives charged, with HannStar in particular being pegged for violating the Sherman Act during its participation in the conspiracy from September 2001 to January 2006. So, anyone up for being lucky number eight?
