Scales of Justice: Eastman Kodak Company vs. Apple Inc.

 
The Associated Press reported yesterday that a federal agency that oversees trade disputes will investigate Eastman Kodak Co.'s patent-infringement complaint over digital-camera technology used in iPhones and BlackBerrys. Kodak has filed separate lawsuits against Apple in U.S. District Court in Rochester, claiming an infringement of patents related to digital cameras and certain computer processes. Patently Apple has discovered that the granted patents in dispute are 5,226,161, 5,421,012 and 5,303,379; all of which are Wang Laboratories Inc, patents which must have been acquired by Kodak in 1997. According to the filing, the technology in question goes beyond the iPhone and covers other Apple products such as the Mac mini, iMac, Mac Pro, Xserve Nehalem, MacBook, iMac, iPhone 3GS, and iPod Touch. One of the patents deals with all things "Objects" and on that count, Apple's acquisition of NeXT who invented WebObjects may come into play in this law suit which predates Wang Laboratories Inc, patent dates. This report presents you with the raw court filing related to this case so that you could be better informed.

Court Filing

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY – Plaintiff vs. APPLE INC. – Defendant

Civil Action - JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

COMPLAINT AND JURY CLAIM

1. This action arises under the patent laws of the United States, Title 35 of the United States Code, and relates to U.S. Patent No. 5,226,161, U.S. Patent No. 5,421,012, and U.S. Patent No. 5,303,379.

The Parties

2. Plaintiff Eastman Kodak Company ("Kodak") is a New Jersey corporation with its principal place of business at 343 State Street, Rochester, New York 14650.

3. The Defendant is Apple Inc. ("Apple"). Apple Inc., is a California corporation having its principle place of business at 1 Infinite Loop, Cupertino, California 95014. Among other things, Apple Inc. designs, manufactures and markets personal computers, mobile communication devices and portable digital music and video players, and sells a variety of related software, services, peripherals and network solutions.

Jurisdiction and Venue

4. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1338 (a).

5. The personal jurisdiction of this Court over Apple is proper because Apple commits acts of infringement in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271 and places infringing products into the stream of commerce, via an established distribution channel, with the knowledge and/or understanding that such products are sold in the State of New York, including in this District. These acts cause injury to Kodak within the District. Upon information and belief, Apple derives substantial revenue from the sale of infringing products distributed within the District, and/or expects or should reasonably expect its actions to have consequences within the District and derives substantial revenue from interstate and international commerce. In addition, Apple has, and continues to, knowingly induce infringement within this State and within this District by contracting with others to market and sell infringing products with the knowledge and intent to facilitate infringing sales of the products by others within this District, by creating and/or disseminating user manuals for the products with like knowledge and intent, and by warranting the products sold by others within the District. 6. Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 (b), (c) and 1400 (b).

First Claim for Relief

(Patent Infringement)

7. Kodak is the owner by assignment of U.S. Patent No. 5,226,161 ("the '161 patent"), entitled "Integration of Data Between Typed Objects by Mutual, Direct Invocation Between Data Managers Corresponding to Data Types" a true copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A. The '161 patent was duly and legally issued on July 6, 1993.

8. Apple has infringed and continues to infringe the '161 patent, by using, selling and/or offering to sell, within the United States, and/or by importing into the United States, products, including, but not limited to, the Mac mini, iMac, Mac Pro, Xserve Nehalem, MacBook, iMac, iPhone 3GS, and iPod Touch, which embody and/or practice Claim 1 of the '161 patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271.

 

9. Apple has induced, and continues to induce, others to infringe the '161 patent in violation of 35 U.S.C § 271, by taking active steps to encourage and facilitate others' direct infringement of Claim 1 of the '161 patent with knowledge of that infringement, such as, upon information and belief, by contracting for the distribution of the infringing mobile devices for infringing sale such as by retail sales outlets, by marketing the infringing mobile devices, by creating and/or distributing user manuals for the infringing mobile devices, and by supplying warranty coverage for the infringing mobile devices sold in this State and in this District.

10. Apple has contributorily infringed the '161 patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271, by selling within the United States, offering for sale within the United States, and/or importing components that embody a material part of the inventions described in Claim 1 of the '161 patent, are known by Apple to be especially made or specially adapted for use in infringement of Claim 1 of the '161 patent, and are not staple articles or commodities suitable for substantial, non-infringing use, including certain mobile devices and non-staple constituent parts of those mobile devices.

11. Kodak has put Apple on notice of the '161 patent and Apple's infringement thereof through a series of communications and meetings between Kodak and Apple beginning at least as early as November, 2007. Moreover, upon information and belief, Apple had actual knowledge of the '161 patent well in advance of November, 2007.

12. As a result of Apple's infringement, Kodak has suffered, and will continue to suffer, substantial damages. Kodak will also suffer irreparable harm unless Apple's infringement is enjoined by this Court.

Second Claim for Relief

(Patent Infringement)

13. Kodak is the owner by assignment of U.S. Patent No. 5,421,012 ("the '012 patent"), entitled Multitasking Computer System for Integrating the Operation of Different Application Programs which Manipulate Data Objects of Different Types" a true copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit B. The '012 patent was duly and legally issued on May 30, 1995.

14. Apple has infringed and continues to infringe the '012 patent, by using, selling and/or offering to sell, within the United States, and/or by importing into the United States, products, including, but not limited to, the Mac mini, iMac, Mac Pro, Xserve Nehalem, MacBook, iMac, iPhone 3GS, and iPod Touch, which embody and/or practice Claim 1 of the '012 patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271.

15. Apple has induced, and continues to induce, others to infringe the '012 patent in violation of 35 U.S.C § 271, by taking active steps to encourage and facilitate others' direct infringement of Claim 1 of the '012 patent with knowledge of that infringement, such as, upon information and belief, by contracting for the distribution of the infringing mobile devices for infringing sale such as by retail sales outlets, by marketing the infringing mobile devices, by creating and/or distributing user manuals for the infringing mobile devices, and by supplying warranty coverage for the infringing mobile devices sold in this State and in this District.

16. Apple has contributorily infringed the '012 patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271, by selling within the United States, offering for sale within the United States, and/or importing components that embody a material part of the inventions described in Claim1 of the '012 patent, are known by Apple to be especially made or specially adapted for use in infringement of Claim 1 of the '012 patent, and are not staple articles or commodities suitable for substantial, non-infringing use, including certain mobile devices and non-staple constituent parts of those mobile devices.

17. Kodak has put Apple on notice of the '012 patent and Apple's infringement thereof through a series of communications and meetings between Kodak and Apple beginning at least as early as November, 2007. Moreover, upon information and belief, Apple had actual knowledge of the '012 patent well in advance of November, 2007.

18. As a result of Apple's infringement, Kodak has suffered, and will continue to suffer, substantial damages. Kodak will also suffer irreparable harm unless Apple's infringement is enjoined by this Court.

Third Claim for Relief

(Patent Infringement)

19. Kodak is the owner by assignment of U.S. Patent No. 5,303,379 ("the '379 patent"), entitled "Link Mechanism for Linking Data Between Objects and for Performing Operations on the Linked Data in an Object Based System" a true copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit C. The '379 patent was duly and legally issued on April 12, 1994.

20. Apple has infringed and continues to infringe the '379 patent, by using, selling and/or offering to sell, within the United States, and/or by importing into the United States, products, including, but not limited to, the Mac mini, iMac, Mac Pro, Xserve Nehalem, MacBook, iMac, iPhone 3GS, and iPod Touch, which embody and/or practice Claim 1 of the '379 patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271.

21. Apple has induced, and continues to induce, others to infringe the '379 patent in violation of 35 U.S.C § 271, by taking active steps to encourage and facilitate others' direct infringement of Claim 1 of the '379 patent with knowledge of that infringement, such as, upon information and belief, by contracting for the distribution of the infringing mobile devices for infringing sale such as by retail sales outlets, by marketing the infringing mobile devices, by creating and/or distributing user manuals for the infringing mobile devices, and by supplying warranty coverage for the infringing mobile devices sold in this State and in this District.

22. Apple has contributorily infringed the '379 patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271, by selling within the United States, offering for sale within the United States, and/or importing components that embody a material part of the inventions described in Claim 1 of the '379 patent, are known by Apple to be especially made or specially adapted for use in infringement of Claim 1 of the '379 patent, and are not staple articles or commodities suitable for substantial, non-infringing use, including certain mobile devices and non-staple constituent parts of those mobile devices.

23. Kodak has put Apple on notice of the '379 patent and Apple's infringement thereof through a series of communications and meetings between Kodak and Apple beginning at least as early as November, 2007. Moreover, upon information and belief, Apple had actual knowledge of the '379 patent well in advance of November, 2007.

24. As a result of Apple's infringement, Kodak has suffered, and will continue to suffer, substantial damages. Kodak will also suffer irreparable harm unless Apple's infringement is enjoined by this Court.

WHEREFORE, Kodak requests that the Court:

1. Adjudge that Apple has infringed and continues to infringe the asserted claims of the '161, '012, and '379 patents;
2. Preliminarily and permanently enjoin Apple from further infringement of the '161, '012, and '379 patents;
3. Award Kodak compensatory damages;
4. Award Kodak enhanced damages of treble its actual damages for willful infringement;
5. Award Kodak its costs and reasonable experts' fees and attorneys' fees; and
6. Award Kodak such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.

PLAINTIFF CLAIMS A TRIAL BY JURY ON ALL ISSUES SO TRIABLE.

EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY

By its attorneys,

HARRIS BEACH PLLC

Notice: Patently Apple only presents a brief summary of court documents as they are presented from various court document services for journalistic purposes. Readers are cautioned that the report is not intended to be an analysis or assessment of the merits of the case nor legal advice on the case. The full text of any court document and/or associated documents should be read in their entirety for further details.

Temporary Granted Patent links: 5,226,161, 5,421,012 and 5,303,379

 

Update 4:30 PM 02/19/2010: The U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) has voted to institute an investigation of certain mobile telephones and wireless communication devices featuring digital cameras and components thereof. The products at issue in this investigation are smartphones with build-in cameras. See the original USITC Notice.

For additional information on any "Granted Patent" presented in this filing, simply feed the individual patent number noted above into this search engine. Please note that any of the temporary links presented in today's report are in fact temporary and may redirect you to unrelated patents in the future. In such cases refer back to the search engine method.

Comments

[Dr. Moreaux]

TS states "Kodak lived and breathed R&D for decades and was at the cutting edge fo digital photography, vastly beyond anyone else, for years. "I'm a huge Apple fan, but I hope Kodak wins this one." They deserve to benefit from the work that they did."

Number one, these weren't Kodak patents originally, so no one at kodak lived and breathed anything on these 3 patents. They came from Wang, a company which was a blip in time, a dinosaur who deserved to die in light of the revolutionary Macintosh GUI and Microsoft's Word.

Secondly, these patents have nothing to do with photography. They're about software objects and on that point, it was NeXT Computer who brought this to market via their NeXTSTEP OS, starting in 1986: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NeXTSTEP

Kodak doesn't have a prayer on this one. They picked on the wrong company, especially because Wang died. Kodak lawyers dug up this nonesense in a desperate attempt to extort money. This has no bearing on Apple due to their ownership of NeXT patents. NeXT and Apple did something with these patents via breakthrough operating systems. What did wang do with these patents - especially for "digital cameras?"

The investigation by the USITC is about stopping Apple's (and blackberry)sale of digital phones. Neither of the three patents in question even pertain to cameras. The word "camera" can't be found in any of the three patents.

This is desperate Kodak seeing their end drawing nigh and like a drowning victim, is flailing around before a final descent.

[James Katt]

Apple, with its billions, can buy a majority of Kodak then fire the CEO and its lawyers. Then it can sue Nokia with Kodak's patents.

[Marc J. Driftmeyer]

Apple's NeXT patents go back to 1988.

[TS]

I'm sorry, but that last comment is nonsense. It means that no one should ever benefit from their work, because someone might have to pay for it. So, you would have all stores standing open with all products available for free. IP has value for a reason. If you use someone else's, you have to pay for it.

Kodak lived and breathed R&D for decades and was at the cutting edge of digital photography, vastly beyond anyone else, for many years. I'm a huge Apple fan, but I hope Kodak wins this one. They deserve to benefit from the work that they did (and do).

[AdamC]

Sad, ultimately such actions impact the consumers more than the corporations because the costs will be passed on to them.

[Ty]

Hard to read the patents and see anything especially clever.