Apple Reveals their Coolest Invention Ever: Wirelessly Charging Future iDevices While they Levitate, Spin & More
Apple has launched a new Lawsuit against Qualcomm in the U.K.

Inventergy, listed in Apple's Lawsuit against Acacia as a Conspirator with Nokia, Sues Apple on 7 Counts of Patent Infringement

1 Cover Patent Troll Lawsuit -


Apple licenses iPhone communication patents through recognized industry patent pools and uses industry leading modems and parts wherein the parts suppliers have their own patent portfolios. And yet Nokia and Qualcomm and others are always trying to sue the profit leading smartphone leader Apple.


Today Patently Apple has learned that Apple is being sued by Inventergy, Inc., a professional Patent Troll (or defender of IP, depending on which side of the isle you're on) led by former HP VP of Intellectual Property Licensing Joe Beyers.


Apple recently acknowledged Inventergy in their lawsuit against Acacia Research Corporation. Apple noted that a number of companies were in a conspiracy against them led by Nokia, as noted in Apple's graphic that was found in their lawsuit. Inventergy was one of the alleged conspirators listed on Apple's chart.


2af 99 apple lawsuit shows the web fighting them led by nokia

Inventergy mentions Nokia in their patent infringement case against Apple by noting that they "own hundreds of other patents related to mobile telecommunications and wireless technology acquired from Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. ("Huawei") and Nokia Corporation ("Nokia")."


Inventergy's lawsuit against Apple was filed in late February in Delaware. They've listed seven patents formerly owned by Panasonic and Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. The four from Matsushita are 6,466,563, 6,611,676, 7,206,587 and 6,760,590; the three from Panasonic are 7,760,815, 7,764,711 and 7,848,439. The lawsuit claims that the iPhone 7m 7 Plus and equivalents, and Apple's HSPA devices infringe on the patents presented in their case.



In one segment of the lawsuit Inventergy notes that "On January 16, 2015, Inventergy first contacted Defendant regarding a potential license to a number of patents in Inventergy's patent portfolio, including the '563, '676, '587, '815, '439, and '590 Asserted Patents. Inventergy's letter to Defendant described the portfolio on 3G (WDCMA) and 4G (LTE) communications and identified 34 patent families, consisting of 347 patents, with claims directed to end user devices. Inventergy explained that a number of these patents and patent families related to "WCDMA and LTE standards enabled in Apple Products" and were therefore subject to FRAND licensing commitments. Inventergy further explained that it was "prepared to grant Apple a worldwide, nonexclusive license" and offered specific royalty rates for Apple's products. Inventergy also attached a number of claim charts, including charts for the '590 and '439 Patents.


Inventergy contacted Defendant on February 13, 2015 to further discuss the possibility of granting Defendant a worldwide, nonexclusive license for its patent portfolio, including for the Asserted Patents.


Inventergy sent additional claim charts to Defendant on March 6, 2015, including for the '563 Patent.


On March 31, 2015, Inventergy sent Defendant additional details relating to its Panasonic patent portfolio.


After a period of discussion, the parties' met on or around August 4, 2015. At that meeting, Inventergy presented Defendant with additional details of Defendant's infringement of the Asserted Patents, including with claim charts for at least the '590 and '439 Patents. Inventergy reiterated its proposal for granting Defendant a worldwide, nonexclusive license for its patent portfolio, including for the Asserted Patents.


On August 25, 2015, Inventergy sent Defendant additional details regarding several of the Asserted Patents, along with several claim charts including an updated chart for the '563 Patent.


Throughout the events described above, Inventergy continuously offered Defendant a license to its Panasonic Portfolio, including the Asserted Patents, on FRAND terms. To date, Defendant has refused to enter into such a licensing agreement."


The patent infringement case presented in today's report was filed in Delaware District Court, Wilmington Office, New Castle. At present, no Judge has been assigned to the case.


10.15 Bar - Patently Legal

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 Making Comments on this Site: Patently Apple reserves the right to post, dismiss or edit comments. Those using abusive language or behavior will result in being blacklisted on Disqus.





The comments to this entry are closed.