Apple's iMac and Mac mini Targeted in new Patent Lawsuit Regarding Wireless Networks using Low Duty Cycle RF Bursts
Today, DSS Technology Management, a leading developer and integrator of security technologies has filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Apple. The patent infringement lawsuit concerns Apple's Mac Mini and iMac computers that provide wireless Bluetooth connections to a plurality of peripheral devices that infringe on two DSS patents regarding "a data network system in which the server and the peripherals communicate in low duty cycle RF bursts." Report Updated Nov. 28, 2013
In their formal complaint, DSS states that "On information and belief, Apple is engaged in the business of developing and selling computers and consumer electronics. More particularly, Apple offers Mac Mini and iMac computers that provide wireless Bluetooth connections to a plurality of peripheral devices, namely a keyboard and a mouse.
Additionally, Apple advertises the Mac Pro computer that will be offered for sale beginning in December 2013 that will also have a plurality of wireless peripheral devices. (See http://www.apple.com/mac-pro/ (last visited November 20, 2013). The Mac Mini, iMac, and Mac Pro computers are referred to herein as the "Accused Computer Instrumentalities."
The complaint further notes that "On information and belief, Apple sells a number of consumer electronic products that include the capability of using a plurality of Bluetooth wireless peripherals. These products include the iPhone product line, iPad product line, iPod Touch product line, and iPod Nano product line (these product lines are referred to herein as the "Accused Consumer Electronics Instrumentalities").
At least by the filing of this action, Apple has been given actual notice of the existence of the '290 Patent and the '357 Patent. In spite of having received such notice, Apple has intended, and continues to intend, to induce patent infringement by its customers, and, as of at least the filing date of this action, has had knowledge that the inducing acts would cause infringement or, alternatively, has been willfully blind to the possibility that its inducing acts would cause infringement. The Accused Computer Instrumentalities and the Accused Consumer Electronics Instrumentalities comprise the Accused Instrumentalities.
On information and belief, Apple is engaged in the business of developing, making or having made, using, offering for sale and selling the Accused Instrumentalities. Among the many features of the Accused Instrumentalities is the ability to connect to a plurality of wireless peripherals. On information and belief, each of the Accused Instrumentalities constitute an integrated hardware and software solution that acts, among other capacities, as a data network system in which the server and the peripherals communicate in low duty cycle RF bursts.
The Accused Computer Instrumentalities provide a system for communicating data in which the server and the peripherals communicate in low duty cycle RF bursts as claimed in one or more claims of the '290 Patent. As shown by Apple's technical publications, the Accused Instrumentalities can be configured to perform the method(s) claimed in one or more claims of the '290 Patent."
In regards to the second patent in this case, DSS's formal complaint states that "The Accused Consumer Electronics Instrumentalities provide a battery powered system for communicating data in which the server and the peripherals communicate in low duty cycle RF bursts as claimed in one or more claims of the '357 Patent."
The complaint further states that Apple "has been willfully blind to the possibility that its inducing acts would cause infringement." That's legalese for wanting the judge to triple the damages against Apple should they be found guilty.
The patent infringement case presented in today's report was filed in the Texas Eastern District Court, Tyler office. The Presiding Judge in this case is noted as being Judge John D. Love.
Update Nov. 28, 2013: Yesterday we originally posted our report stating that DSS was a non-practicing entity or patent troll. That was in error and we've corrected our opening summary this morning to reflect that change. We appologize for any confusion created by our mis-characterization of DDS.
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.