The Alleged Patent Infringement In-Part

According to court documents, StreetSpace alleges that Apple has been and is infringing, contributing to infringement and/or inducing others to infringe one or more claims of patent 6,847,969 (also referred to as the '969 patent) literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents by making, using, selling, importing and/or offering for sale a method and/or system for providing personalized and/or targeted online advertising services based on location, users' profiles and/or usage history, such as iAds, and/or making, using, selling, importing and/or offering for sale the iPhone, iPad, and iPod Touch and other products and/or services that deliver or are capable of delivering targeted and/or personalized advertising services based on location, users' profiles and/or usage history (collectively, "Apple's Accused Products and Services.")

StreetSpace is further informed or believes that based thereon alleges that if and to the extent Apple is not infringing directly, Apple is infringing indirectly by contributing to and/or inducing a direct infringer (including without limitation the creator, user and/or recipient of targeted and/or personalized advertisements created, managed or maintained by Apple and/or Quattro Wireless) to infringe the '969 patent.

StreetSpace is further informed and believes and based thereon alleges that Apple is knowingly inducing direct infringement and has the specific intent to encourage another's direct infringement by designing, developing and selling advertisement services, such as iAds, to third party advertisers, vendors and retailers for the purpose of delivering targeted and/or personalized advertising services based on location, users' profiles and/or history, and/or making, using, importing and/or offering for sale the iPhone, iPad, and iPod Touch and other products and/or services that deliver or are capable of delivering targeted or personalized advertising services based on location, users' profiles and/or usage history.

StreetSpace is further informed and believes and based thereon alleges that Apple's Accused Products and Services are material components of StreetSpace's patented method and/or system and that Apple's Accused Products and Services are not capable of substantial non-infringement use.

StreetSpace alleges that based on Apple's prior knowledge of patent '969 and other facts to be proved at trial, Apple's infringement has been and is willful.

A similar charge, as noted above against Apple, is laid out in respect to charging Quattro Wireless of patent infringement. Other defendants in this case include Google, AdMob, Nokia, NAVTEQ and others.

On a humorous note, Streetspace is glad to point out in their lawsuit that IDEO, a design and innovation consulting firm which designed their "Street Linc terminal" (now known as the Web Station), also designed Apple's first mouse. Oh, the irony.  

The case was filed in the United States California Northern District Court, Oakland Office. The presiding Judge in this case is noted as being Judge Donna M. Ryu. It should be noted that the original complaint was filed in August 2010. However, the case was transferred from the California Southern District Court to the Northern District Court this past Monday along with other activiity noticed on the docket.  

It should be noted that our report uses the names Streetspace and StreetSpace. The patent awarded to this company by the USPTO was filed under StreetSpace, though current company literature uses Streetspace.

Notice: Patently Apple presents only a brief summary of certain legal cases/ lawsuits which are part of the public record for journalistic news purposes. Readers are cautioned that Patently Apple does not offer an opinion on the merit of the case and strictly presents the allegations made in said legal cases / lawsuits. A lawyer should be consulted for any further details or analysis. About Comments: Patently Apple reserves the right to post, dismiss or edit comments. On most legal cases, comments will be closed. See our Legal Archives for other patent infringement cases.