Posts Tagged: "Apple"

Do you ever have trouble remembering when to replace your running shoes? Apple seems interested in introducing an intelligent piece of footwear that will warn wearers of when a critical level of wear and tear has been reached. Worn out shoes don’t offer the correct amount of support to your feet and can cause injury to your feet, knees and even back, so Apple’s newest wearable technology venture is a health asset and not just something that looks cool.

This Tuesday, Apple Inc. was once again the recipient of a number of issued patents, as 26 intellectual property patents were awarded to the company. As we’ll see, a number of these are related to improvements in resource efficiency, especially those tailored to mobile devices like the iPhone. Apple also received a patent that may save many iPhone users hours of time: a system that automatically syncs important account data with a new device when replacing a broken or outdated model.

Apple Inc. is always applying for protections on different device designs and computer systems. As happens every once in a while, three of these 18 published patents are part of a single series; these patents pertain to linking user accounts for mobile app software to obtain upgrades. Other patent applications seek protections on applications that provide parental oversight of a child’s pre-paid debit account or aid zoom functions on picture viewing applications.

Tuesday’s list of issued patents published by the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office includes 27 patents assigned to Cupertino, California device manufacturer Apple Inc. Each week, Apple is awarded a few patents that pertain to their electronic devices or computer systems. This week, Apple was awarded a new design patent for its laptops, as well as patents protecting methods of either creating more rugged touchscreens or finding useful social network recommendations through data analysis.

The USPTO issued 37 different patents to Apple Inc. on Tuesday, January 8, to protect different devices and computer systems developed by the electronics manufacturer. Some of these protect earlier generations of iPod and iPhone devices that have been sold for a few years. Others protect systems of transferring documents or advertisements among mobile device users. Some of these patent issuances are bittersweet for the company as former CEO Steve Jobs is listed as an inventor on a few of them.

In the first week of 2013, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s published patent applications feature a number of intriguing Apple patents related to laptop design and data transmission systems. MacBook users could find themselves buying a new generation of wedge-shaped laptops, complete with a new lithium ion battery designed to reduce damaging corrosion. Apple also delves into the publishing world with a series of patents meant to improve electronic book design. All of these patent applications were published on Jan. 3, 2013.

U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton while there are similarities in the names of the digital application storefronts, Apple has not proved that Amazon has in fact tried to pass itself off as an official Apple app store. In her order to dismiss the claim, Hamilton wrote, “There is no evidence that a consumer who accesses the Amazon Appstore would expect that it would be identical to the Apple App Store, particularly given that the Apple App Store sells apps solely for Apple devices, while the Amazon Appstore sells apps solely for Android and Kindle devices. Further, the integration of Apple devices has more to do with Apple’s technology than it does with the nature, characteristics, or qualities of the App Store.”

Each week, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office publishes patent applications, and computer and electronics developer Apple Inc. always has at least a few published patent applications. In this column, we’ll look at some of these published applications, looking for hints as to what new devices or features Apple may have in store for users in the future. In this edition we explore published patent applications relating to a graphical user interface that will assist users with special needs, such as vision or hearing problems, an ambitious system for generating electricity from stored wind energy, as well as various devices, systems and software more commonly associated with Apple’s various portable electronic devices.

the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit determined that the United States Federal District Court for the Southern District of California abused its discretion when it refused to award a victorious patent plaintiff a permanent injunction where the patentee directly competes with the infringer. The case is Presidio Components v. American Technical Ceramics. The opinion was authored by Chief Judge Rader and joined by Judge Plager and Judge Wallach. Perhaps this case will be a turning point, something of a Twisted Sister moment. You know — “we’re Not gonna take it, no, we ain’t gonna take it, we’re not gonna take it anymore…” I sure hope so!

Yesterday, the Judge Koh of the United States District Court for the Federal Circuit denied Apple’s request for a permanent injunction in their ongoing patent war over smartphones with Samsung. The denial of the injunction will allow Samsung to continue to sell phones found to infringe Apple’s patents. How can that make sense to anyone? The patentee, who has already won, must establish entitlement to an order to exclude ongoing and future infringement under a four-factor test that balances equities? What good is a patent? Why did the Patent Office even bother reviewing the patent in the first place then? Why do we pretend that there is an exclusive right in the first place? And the most ignorant elements of the anti-patent community have the audacity to refer to a patent as a monopoly? Give me a break!

Why is this fight so important? It could be a crucial decision for both companies, with the winner gaining leverage in the fast-paced and ever-growing billion dollar market. Each side wants to protect their stake, since they risk losing their high position on the mobile leaderboard as so many companies before them have done. Prime examples of companies that were once at the top of the game but are nowhere to be seen are BlackBerry and Nokia. Both of these were once the biggest names in mobile phones and handheld devices, but lost their edge once new technology started coming out.

The brief addresses this issue in the context of patent infringement claims that Motorola, Inc. has filed against Apple, Inc. regarding technologies used in iPhones and iPads that allegedly are covered by Motorola’s SEPs. It concludes that a district court correctly applied the governing legal principles when it dismissed Motorola’s request for an injunction that could have blocked Apple from selling iPhones and iPads in the United States.

First, remember that Steve Jobs once referred to the smartphone patent wars as the patent equivalent of global thermonuclear war. But will this be more like the Cold War or the Apocalypse? The only patent war that I can recall that actually approximated a patent version of the Apocalypse was the battle between Polaroid and Kodak. That saw a $909 million verdict in 1990, and ultimately settled for $925 million about a year later, but required total aggregate attorneys fees in the neighborhood of $550 million. The war lasted 15 years and didn’t achieve the $2.5 to $5 billion that once upon a time was believed possible. This was also at a time when these numbers were real money.

Acacia announced that the Company’s Board of Directors has authorized a program for repurchasing shares of the Company’s outstanding common stock. The stock repurchase program will be put into effect immediately. Under the stock repurchase program, the Company is authorized to purchase in the aggregate up to $100 million of its common stock through the period ending May 15, 2013. Meanwhile, HTC settles with Apple and more.

According to the company, Apple’s method utilizes a solid-state air mover using “corona discharge—an electrical discharge near a charged conductor caused by the ionization of the surrounding air.” This is made of one corona electrode, one collector electrode, and a high voltage power supply. An electric field is created when voltage is applied to electrodes; the electric field causes surrounding particles to become ionized (charged). The electric field “spreads” a charge toward the collector electrode, and the charge continues to spread and create air movement en masse.