Floridians by the name of Paul Orshan and Christopher Endara have filed a class action lawsuit against Apple for storage capacity misrepresentations and omissions relating to Apple's iOS 8. According to the filing, "iOS 8 uses an unexpectedly large percentage of the storage capacity on 8 GB and 16 GB iPhones, iPads and iPods." While this is an annoyance lawsuit, it's an industry practice that should end – and Apple should lead the way.
A Patent Troll by the name of Dynamic Hosting Company is suing Apple for infringement regarding visual voicemail. Wikipedia notes that in 2007, Apple's iPhone was the first cell phone promoting this feature. Yet according to this patent troll, their recently purchased patents predate the iPhone's use of visual voicemail. Other companies that Dynamic Hosting Company has sued over the years include Xerox, Casio, Google, Samsung, Epson, Canon and others.
According to a Japanese report published late yesterday, the Tokyo District Court heard the first arguments in Shimano Manufacturing Co.'s lawsuit against Apple. The Tokyo-based electronics component maker is demanding compensation from Apple to the tune of US$8.5 million over alleged infringements of Shimano's patent for a precision component embedded in the joint of the power adapter for Apple's laptops. Apple's response in court was to deny they infringed Shimano's patent. They additionally denied that they were using their market dominance to bully Shimano, arguing that the Japanese subcontractor was the one being unreasonable in their business partnership. Yet in light of Apple's very public case with GTAT where Apple was painted as a bully and noted as being oppressive and burdensome as a business partner, some would argue that Apple has a history of bullying suppliers and that playing nice guy in court isn't going to play very well in this or any future case brought against them.
Patently Apple was the first Apple site to cover the original Class Action filed against Apple for defective MacBook logic boards. We also covered the second Class Action over this issue in May of this year. The plaintiff's council wrote in the latter case that Apple's "cover-up" shows that they "had knowledge of the defect, yet willfully and intentionally decided to hide the defect, resulting in continuing damage to the Class." By far, it's been a contentious issue and we've had the most email sent in to us on this issue than any other report we've ever covered. Now the battle goes north to Canada where a new Class Action request has been filed on behalf of a Montreal resident by the name of Mr. Carbonneau. The difference here is that this is a National Class Action open to any Canadian to join from any Province. The Class Actions that were filed in the U.S. were limited to the States where the action was filed.
A technology site noted last month that "The biggest factors that keep Chinese smartphone makers out of the West – and even developed countries in Asia like South Korea and Japan – are carrier subsidies, patents, and cultural stigma." Today we learned just how true that statement was. With Xiaomi experiencing dramatic success within China, they set their eyes on their next market target: India. Today that plan was dealt a blow. The Indian High Court has banned Xiaomi from selling, importing and advertising smartphones in their country.
According to a new report this afternoon, Google has agreed to settle litigation with patent consortium Rockstar, though the terms of the deal weren't disclosed in a court filing made public this week. Rockstar, which counts Apple as an investor, outbid Google and paid $4.5 billion in 2011 for thousands of former Nortel Network Corp patents as the networking products supplier went bankrupt.
Patently Apple originally covered a patent infringement case back in April 2013 titled "Mobile Telecommunications Technologies Sue Apple over iMessage." We noted that Mobile Telecommunications Technologies (MTEL), the company behind SkyTel, had filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Apple claiming that they had infringed upon seven of their patents. The patent infringement lawsuit concerned Apple's iMessage, Airport Express, Airport Extreme, Time Capsule and devices such as the iPhone, iPad and iPod touch. Today we learn that Apple has lost this case.
A Patent Troll goes down in Flames: Late yesterday a "patent troll" by the name of US Ethernet Innovations that had sued a number of major technology companies over four Ethernet patents that it said their networking products contained has been defeated in court and was ordered to pay costs. This technically now opens the door for the Apple v. Oracle case to resume.
In May we posted a report titled "New Class Action Lawsuit Filed against Apple Concerns Android Phones & iMessage." The plaintiff in that case, Adrienne Moore, filed the class action lawsuit against Apple because when she switched from her iPhone 4 to a Galaxy S5, she was no longer able to receive iMessages from her friends with iPhones. Today, Apple was ordered by U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh in San Jose, to face a U.S. federal lawsuit filed by Adrienne Moore claiming it failed to tell consumers that its messaging system would block them from receiving text messages if they switched to Android-based smartphones from iPhones.
On October 22 we reported that a patent troll by the name of GPNE Lost their patent infringement case against Apple. Now Patently Apple is first to discover that there may be a little more to this case. Late on Friday Apple applied to the US District Court in Hawaii an ex parte for an order granting Apple leave to obtain targeted discovery from GPNE Corp. for use in a foreign proceeding.
Lufax, a company from Pudong, Shanghai, China is suing Apple under four counts for allowing a "counterfeit app" to be sold on iTunes App Store after Apple failed to respond to their request within 60 days. Legally speaking, the complaint was filed under "Lujiazui International Financial Asset Exchange, Co., Ltd. v. Apple Inc."
A bold if not crazy Indian Company is asking India's Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) to remove Apple's "iPhone" trademark from the Trademark Registry. I read about this case last week and decided not to cover it thinking that the request would be instantly quashed by IPAB. I was wrong. Report Updated