In November 2012 we reported that Apple lost their FaceTime Patent Lawsuit to VirnetX. A US court had ruled that Apple should pay damages to a Connecticut-based company because its FaceTime video chat tool had infringed the firm's patents. VirnetX was awarded $368.2 million. The sum was about half the amount VirnetX had originally demanded. Today a federal appeals court threw out a jury order requiring Apple to pay VirnetX Holding Corp the original amount of $382.2 million. Shares of VirnetX plunged as much as 59.8 percent after the decision by the U.S. Federal Circuit Court of Appeals in Washington.
Core Wireless, headquartered in Luxembourg with an office in Texas, had their attorney Bunsow, De Mory, Smith & Allison file a patent infringement lawsuit against Apple on Wednesday. What makes this an interesting case is that many of the patents listed in this case are Nokia patents. They note on their website that Core Wireless holds one of the world's largest patent portfolios related to mobile communications networks – and that "all 2,000 patents and applications were originally filed by Nokia, a renowned innovator and widely acknowledged key contributor to the development of mobile telephony." A Yahoo! News report published last year quoted the European Commission's Joaguin Almonia starkly stating that "If Nokia were to take illegal advantage of its patents in the future, we will open an antitrust case. But I sincerely hope we will not have to." In that statement, Mr. Almonia pushed things to the next level by using the "patent troll" phrase that is typically not mentioned by senior executives since it's a fairly loaded term. Although Nokia was legally smart enough to sell their portfolio before Microsoft officially acquired Nokia, they certainly knew that selling their patents to another patent troll would result in the same thing – patent troll driven lawsuits against their enemies such as Apple. This stinks to high heaven and you have to wonder if the European Commission will start an action against them or bow out because they were legally out maneuvered.
EICES Research has filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Apple. The patent infringement lawsuit concerns Apple's use of 4G LTE in their iDevice lineup. It's a little hard to understand the case. For instance, the Via Licensing's LTE patent pool brings together the essential LTE patents of multiple innovators into a single offering. The LTE Patent License Agreement provides access to all of the patents from the participating licensors which are essential to the implementation of the 3GPP LTE standard. Why EICES Research believes that their technology is above the standard license isn't explained in the complaint before the court.
Revelations have surfaced in a court filing that the estate of Apple founder Steve Jobs is being sued by one of the company's shareholders. The class action lawsuit claims that Apple misled investors and damaged the value of the company by striking a controversial hiring agreement with other corporations. The action formerly lists the defendants in this case as being Tim Cook, William Campbell, Millard Drexler, Arthur Levinson, Robert Iger, Andrea Jung, Fred Anderson and the Estate of Steven Jobs.
Multiplayer Network Innovations, LLC ("MNI) has filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Apple. The patent infringement lawsuit concerns Apple's line of iPhones, Apple TV Media player, and their line of iPads that allegedly infringe on a patent that MNI acquired that covers multiplayer games, gaming hardware, video and more. Although Apple cites their patent 59 in patents of their own, they refuse to deal with MNI to settle this case. According to the MNI, Apple had knowledge of this patent since 2008.
The Law Offices of Adam Wang on behalf of Plaintiff Chen Ma is bringing an action on behalf of herself and a proposed class of similarly situated individuals against Defendant Apple Inc. for their damages arising out of Apple's blunt violation of iPhone user's privacy. Ma's case points to China's Central Television (CCTV) report on July 11 concerning location services despite Apple's clear notifications of how to turn location services off. We reported on the CCTV complaint on July 11 as well as Apple's response on July 13. Is this lawsuit being blindly filed to help CCTV save face for a poor report that they brought to China's public? Only time will tell.
Late on Friday a Texas based company by the name of Cedatech Holdings, LLC filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Apple using a 2010 granted patent titled "Integration of Audio or Video Program with Application." The lawsuit focuses on Apple's use of speech recognition software in such products as the iPhone and iPad.
On July 01 the trial between Israel's Emblaze and Apple began. Emblaze sued Apple for Patent Infringement almost four years ago to date back in 2010. The lawsuit involved a single patent relating to real-time broadcasting over a network that the company claimed Apple was using without a license. The jury on Friday delivered their swift verdict of not guilty.
In 2010 Patently Apple was first to report that an Israeli company by the name of Emblaze Ltd., maker of the advanced "Else" smartphone, filed a lawsuit against Apple Inc. for patent infringement. The lawsuit involves a single patent relating to real-time broadcasting over a network that the company claims is used without license by Apple in their iPhone, iPod Touch, iPad and QuickTime X in Snow Leopard. Today that trial began in San Jose.
Microsoft has launched a Copyright lawsuit against Ocean Enterprises and Alex Sumetsky in Minnesota. In the bigger picture it's about software piracy. Our report provides you with a detailed overview of Microsoft's case along with the latest statistics from The Software Alliance (BSA) that was published this week. The BSA's membership includes Microsoft, Apple, Oracle, and others.
The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that police cannot go snooping through people’s cell phones without a warrant, in a unanimous decision that amounts to a major statement in favor of privacy rights. Police agencies had argued that searching through the data on cell phones was no different than asking someone to turn out his pockets, but the justices rejected that, saying a cell phone is more fundamental. The ruling amounts to a 21st century update to legal understanding of privacy rights.