Posts Tagged: "Apple"

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Tuesday vacated and remanded a decision for a patent owner against Apple, concluding that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) made several errors in finding the claims of the speech recognition patent at issue were not shown to be unpatentable. Zentian Ltd. owns U.S. Patent No. 10,839,789, which is titled “Speech recognition circuit and method.” Apple petitioned for inter partes review (IPR) of multiple claims of the patent, arguing in relevant part that “claim 1 was obvious over prior art reference U.S. Patent No. 5,819,222 (“Smyth”) or the combination of Smyth and U.S. Patent No. 6,832,194 (“Mozer”) and that claim 29 was obvious over Smyth, Mozer, and several other references.”

Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi in the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, last week granted in part and denied in part a professional trumpet player’s motion for leave to amend his complaint that challenges Apple’s APPLE trademark for entertainment services. Judge DeMarchi concluded that the standard had only been met in limited respects and ruled that Bertini may pursue two narrow fraud claims, while his remaining theories were rejected.

The U.S. Supreme Court today granted certiorari in Apple Inc.’s appeal of a civil contempt finding stemming from its App Store dispute with Epic Games, Inc. The case centers on a 2021 injunction issued by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California and a subsequent contempt order tied to Apple’s commission structure on external purchases.

Last week, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Director John Squires issued a decision denying institution of inter partes review (IPR) proceedings petitioned by tech giant Apple to challenge patent rights owned by WeCrevention, the intellectual property holding subsidiary of Taiwanese semiconductor developer Etron Technology. Director Squires’ ruling continues the ongoing crackdown against gamesmanship at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) by petitioners pursuing positions inconsistent with district court litigation to increase their odds of invalidating competitor patent rights.

The U.S. Supreme Court today denied a petition for certiorari challenging the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s (CAFC’s) use of Rule 36 summary affirmances in appeals from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). CPC Patent Technologies petitioned the Court in March of this year asking the Justices to consider the question: “Whether the Federal Circuit can affirm a PTAB decision without opinion in contravention of the clear statutory requirement of an ‘opinion’ when reviewing such decisions.”

In high-stakes patent litigation, post-trial motions are often dismissed as routine clean-up—procedural volleys after the real battle has been fought. That framing does not hold in the battle between Optis Wireless and Apple in the Eastern District of Texas. The filings submitted by the plaintiffs seeking judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) or in the alternative for a new trial present a compelling argument that the jury’s verdict is not merely unfavorable, but structurally unsound. When viewed holistically, the record suggests there was meaningful error—or at least confusion—between in the legal standards, evidentiary rulings, and jury instructions. Against that backdrop, plaintiffs’ position that it is entitled to either JMOL or a new trial requires fresh consideration.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a decision on Friday in Apple Inc. v. International Trade Commission, affirming a final determination that Apple violated Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930. The CAFC determined that the United States International Trade Commission (ITC) correctly concluded that Masimo Corporation and Cercacor Laboratories, Inc., proved that Apple violated Section 337 through the sale and import of certain Apple Watch models, ultimately “finding no error in the Commission’s domestic industry determination, its validity rulings, or its infringement findings.” The CAFC also held that the asserted patents were not unenforceable due to prosecution laches.

A British consumers’ organization has withdrawn its competition claim against Qualcomm after it determined the Competition Appeal Tribunal was likely to find Qualcomm was not at fault.    The consumers’ organization, Which?, filed the claim in February 2021 on behalf of around 29 million British consumers, alleging that Qualcomm had “breached UK competition law by taking advantage of its dominance in the patent-licensing and chipset markets.”

The U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware on Wednesday granted a case-dispositive motion for judgment in favor of Apple Inc., finding the single patent claim asserted by Immervision, Inc., invalid for lack of enablement. In a memorandum opinion, U.S. District Judge Maryellen Noreika adopted a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation that Immervision’s claim was an impermissible “single-means claim,” a seldom-invoked doctrine of patent law. The ruling, which Judge Noreika noted would be case-dispositive, concluding the patent infringement suit that Immervision had brought against Apple.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Wednesday reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded a final written decision from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding filed by Apple, Inc.. The court concluded that the Board was precluded from finding the challenged claims of a patent owned by Smart Mobile Technologies LLC patentable, where a related patent with substantially similar claims had been found unpatentable in a prior IPR.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Tuesday vacated and remanded a final written decision from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding. The court concluded that the Board erred by denying petitioner Apple Inc. an adequate opportunity to respond to a new claim construction argument raised by patent owner Smart Mobile Technologies LLC after the IPR was instituted. Apple challenged U.S. Patent No. 9,191,083, owned by Smart Mobile, which is described as a “portable and wireless enabled” network box designed to transmit and receive multiple data streams simultaneously. The technology at issue involves using a “plurality of antennas” to handle these simultaneous data streams. After instituting the IPR, the Board ultimately determined that Apple had not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the challenged claims of the ‘083 patent were unpatentable as obvious.

Taking their cue from the recent Bartz v. Anthropic saga, the authors of a neuroscience book and professors at the State University of New York filed a class action complaint on October 9 with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging that Apple Inc. committed mass copyright infringement by using pirated books to train its artificial intelligence systems. Plaintiffs Susana Martinez-Conde and Stephen Macknik claimed that Apple built its Apple Intelligence platform, including its OpenELM and Foundation Models, by making unauthorized copies of copyrighted works without permission or compensation.

On Wednesday, Irvine, CA-based health technology company Masimo Corporation filed a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief against U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and several U.S. government officials, challenging ex parte rulings allowing consumer tech giant Apple to restore pulse oximetry functionality to several smartwatch models. This functionality had previously been found to infringe Masimo’s patents by the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC), leading Masimo to question why the CBP utilized proceedings normally reserved for exceptional circumstances after Apple committed hundreds of billions to expand advanced manufacturing and supply chain capacity in the United States.

Fintiv, Inc. has filed a complaint against Apple, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, alleging “corporate theft and racketeering of monumental proportions” due to Apple’s misappropriation of Fintiv’s mobile wallet technology. Fintiv’s complaint charges that Apple blatantly stole its trade secrets for mobile wallet technology from Fintiv’s predecessor, CorFire, under pressure to develop a mobile digital wallet and an inability to do so on its own.