Posts Tagged: "Apple"

On Wednesday, October 6, 2010, Motorola, Inc. announced that its subsidiary, Motorola Mobility, Inc., filed a complaint with the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) alleging that Apple’s iPhone, iPad, iTouch and certain Mac computers infringe Motorola patents. Motorola Mobility also filed concurrent patent infringement complaints against Apple (NASDAQ: AAPL) in the Northern District of Illinois (see complaint 1:10-cv-06381 and complaint 1:10-cv-06385) and the Southern District of Florida (see complaint 1:10-cv-23580-UU). The complaints filed in the two federal district courts do little other than identify the patents owned by Motorola that are believed to be infringed by Apple, specifically identifying the following Apple products that might be infringed: Apple iPhone, the Apple iPhone 3G, the Apple iPhone 3GS, the Apple iPhone 4, the Apple iPad, the Apple iPad with 3G, each generation of the Apple iPod Touch, the Apple MacBook, the Apple MacBook Pro, the Apple MacBook Air, the Apple iMac, the Apple Mac mini and the Apple Mac Pro. This type of naked patent infringement complaint has become the standard and seems to directly contradict the requirements set forth by the Supreme Court in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, which required the recitation of specific facts and prohibited mere speculation.

On Friday, August 27, 2010, Interval Research Corporation brought a patent infringement lawsuit against a who’s who of tech companies in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington at Seattle, specifically suing AOL, Inc., Apple, Inc., eBay, Inc., Facebook, Inc., Google Inc., Netflix, Inc., Office Depot, Inc., OfficeMax Inc., Staples, Inc., Yahoo! Inc. and YouTube, LLC.…

These so-called false marking cases arise from 35 USC § 292, and were given new life thanks to a Federal Circuit decision from December of 2009 — The Forest Group Inc. v. Bon Tool Co. — which quite correctly and quite literally interpreted § 292. As a result, large companies are getting sued every week, and recently Americans for Fair Patent Use sued Apple, Sprint, Verizon and Samsung in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas alleging that the companies are selling products that have expired patent numbers on them, making them the latest high profile targets of this new false marking patent troll. See AFPU v. Appel complaint. One source estimates that if successful the lawsuit could cost Apple alone a total of $60 billion.

Earlier this week Apple, Inc. had three patent application publish on what most would consider strange, overbroad and/or dubious inventions. The patents largely follow the same formula, the drawings are remarkably similar, and all relate back to provisional patents filed at the end of January 2009. Many will ridicule these patent applications, and given that obviousness is now about common sense thanks to the Supreme Court’s decision in KSR v. Teleflex I think rightly so. I find it hard to believe that there would not be prior art located that dates back to before January 2009 that will present massive difficulties for Apple.

The reality is that the term patent troll seems to be more in the eye of the beholder than anything else. So a patent troll is whoever is suing you because you must be correct and some evil wrong-doer is holding you hostage. Never mind that you are actually infringing and you are the real wrong-doer (i.e., tortfeasor). What is needed is a working definition for the term patent troll so that this nonsense can stop once and for all, and so the uninformed in the media can be spared the embarrassment of their own cluelessness. So lets take a look at some of the characteristics that will get you characterized as a patent troll and either confirm it as a useful indicator of a wrong-doer or as simply overblown and wholly inaccurate.

The latest Apple complaint continues to allege direct infringement of Apple patents, this time four separate patents. The complaint also alleges indirect infringement; specifically contributory infringement and inducement to infringe. The patent asserted by Apple are US Patent No. 7,282,453 (Count I); US Patent No. 7,657,849 (Count II); US Patent No. 6,282,646 (Count III) and US Patent No. 7,380,116 (Count IV). The ‘453 patent and the ‘849 patent were both asserted previously by Apple (see what I have previously referred to as the second complaint filed March 2, 2010). It appears as if they are added here due to recently issued Certificates of Correction. The ‘646 patent and the ‘116 patent were not previously asserted in either of the two complaints filed March 2, 2010 in the District of Delaware.

There is more than meets the eye to Nokia selecting the Western District of Wisconsin. According to a study done by Stanford Law Professor Mark Lemley, the average patent litigation is resolved in .56 years, just over 6 months, in the Western District of Wisconsin, which ranks first in terms of time to resolution for patent infringement actions. The Western District of Wisconsin also ranks first in terms of average time to trial, with the average being .67 years, or just 9 months to trial in patent infringement actions. Also, 7.4% of cases proceed to trial, which ranks third.

Patents provide a competitive advantage, and those sophisticated in business know enough to look for and exploit whatever competitive advantage exists. Patents are the 800 pound gorilla of competitive advantage, but realize if you are going to want and need significant sums of money from investors rarely does a single invention or patent command attention. No one wants to invest significant funds into a company that has a one-and-done approach to innovation. You need to understand the road is long. Take a lesson from Apple, Inc. Innovate and then churn your innovation for all its worth, re-purposing the technology, expanding into products and services, constantly push the envelope and milk the golden goose for all its worth!

On March 2, 2010, Apple filed two lawsuits against High Tech Computer Corp. (aka HTC Corp.), HTC (B.V.I.) Corp, HTC America, Inc. and Exeda, Inc in the US District Court for the District of Delaware, and a concurrent ITC proceeding. Speculation has already started to rise, not surprisingly, that the real target of Apple is none other than Google, who is the creator of the Android operating system that seems to be the foundation of the allegedly infringing technologies. Given that Apple has sold over 40 million iPhones worldwide, if they do believe there is infringement they can hardly let Google muscle in on this lucrative technology turf.

Last week a patent application on an energy efficient device that provides enhanced copyright protections was published, not surprisingly with Apple, Inc. as the assignee. On Thursday, February 4, 2010, US Patent Application 20100030928 published, titled Media processing method and device. Certainly not the most sexy title possible, but the thrust of the invention is a device that allows the…

Apple, Inc., the tech giant that has revolutionized how we listen to music and the functionality of a cell phone, is now seeking to expand its extremely popular iPod and iPhone products into greener pastures. Specifically, in a US Patent Application No. 20100013309, which published earlier today, Apple is seeking a patent on a solar powered electronic device, such as an…

In news that has already spread across the Internet like a wildfire, Eastman Kodak Company has sued Apple, Inc., alleging that Apple infringes numerous Kodak patents associated with the iPhone, iPod Touch and various Mac computers. News reports also indicate that Kodak has sued Research in Motion (RIM), maker of the Blackberry. As yet I have not seen a copy…

The patent covers a method of using a telephony device, such as an iPhone, to remotely control various tasks associated with a controlled device, such as a personal computer. Essentially, the iPhone or next generation smart phone will allow a user to control navigation of user interfaces associated with applications or an operating system residing on the second device.

Apple is capitalizing on what would appear to some as Microsoft “crying wolf” syndrome and putting into question whether the new operating system can be trusted because its issues have not been effectively resolved by any of the previously released PC Operating Systems thus far. These ads are brilliant!