After much sound and fury in its legal proceedings for IP infringement against Google, Oracle's claims continue to be whittled away. Judge Alsup has been on Oracle's case to downgrade its damages claims for months now, and on Friday, he got yet another reason to do so. Ellison's crew has finally withdrawn the last remaining claim of patent number 6,192,476 from the litigation -- the very same patent that had 17 of 21 claims wiped out earlier during a USPTO re-examination proceeding. Additionally, Google has filed a motion to strike Oracle's third damages report for, once again, artificially inflating the monetary damages in its expert report. No one can say for sure how the judge will rule on that motion, but given that Oracle's got less IP than ever with which to allege infringement, it seems likely that the Court will send it back to the damages drawing board.

Oracle drops patent from Google lawsuit, Google moves to strike Oracle's third damages report originally appeared on Engadget on Mon, 20 Feb 2012 22:37:00 EDT. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink The Inquirer  |  Letter from Oracle (PDF), Google motion to strike (PDF)  | Email this | Comments

On Friday, the Mannheim Regional Court of Germany announced that Motorola’s patent lawsuit against Apple had been dismissed. The patent in question was considered essential to the 3G/UMTS wireless telecommunications standard and was used as a “method and system for generating a complex pseudonoise sequence for processing a code division multiple access [CDMA] signal.” Judge Andreas Voss claimed that Motorola failed to present conclusive evidence that Apple infringed upon its patent, however, according to FOSS Patents. Rather than demonstrating Apple’s infringement, Motorola argued that any implementation of 3G/UMTS must then inevitably infringe on the company’s invention. Last December, the manufacturer won an injunction against the Cupertino-based company to ban the sales of iPhones and iPads. The ruling was upheld earlier this month and Apple’s devices were temporarily pulled from shelves, before returning soon after.
Read

Elan: 'Apple's paying us $5 million for multitouch patents' originally appeared on Engadget on Thu, 05 Jan 2012 06:59:00 EDT. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink Reuters  |  Taiwan News  | Email this | Comments

HTC now has the upper hand in a legal battle with German patent firm IPCom. IPCom won a lawsuit in 2009 related to UMTS technology under which it believed it had the right to ban German retailers from selling HTC smartphones. HTC, however, argued that IPCom’s case was no longer valid and ignored the injunction entirely. As a result, IPCom recently tried to take the law into its own hands by suing more than 100 retailers that continued to sell HTC phones. ”Since this deadline has passed without any of the retailers complying, IPCom has sued them for infringement of patent #100A themselves,” IPCom said, noting that it issued cease and desist letters to each retailer on December 6th asking them to stop selling HTC phones by December 20th. According to Taiwan Economic News, the German Dusseldorf court recently granted HTC an injunction that forces IPCom to stop harassing HTC’s retailers with lawsuits. The injunction should be a relief for HTC, which could have faced fines of up to €250,000 for each handset sold under the terms of the original injunction.

Read

Seattle-based Cequint Inc. filed a lawsuit against Apple accusing the company of infringing on two patents related to its caller ID technology. “Cequint has been damaged by Apple’s infringement,” the company said in its complaint, filed in a federal court in Wilmington, Delaware. The firm argues that it “will be irreparably harmed” should Apple continue to use its patents without permission. Apple is locked in a number of patent lawsuits around the globe with other companies such as Samsung and HTC, as well. Apple is currently seeking to ban the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1N in Germany and, until recently, had successfully banned the Korea-based company from selling the Galaxy Tab 10.1 in Australia. 

Read

Microsoft opened its case in front of the United States International Trade Commission on Monday in an attempt to block Motorola Mobility from selling its Droid 2, Droid X, Cliq XT, Devour and Backflip smartphones in the U.S. Microsoft believes that Motorola Mobility is infringing on seven of its patents related to how a user interacts with calendars, contacts, email and more. “We have a responsibility to our employees, customers, partners and shareholders to safeguard our intellectual property,” Microsoft’s corporate vice president and deputy general counsel for litigation David Howard told Bloomberg. “Motorola is infringing on our patents and we are confident that the ITC will rule in our favor.” Google recently announced its intentions to purchase Motorola Mobility for $12.5 billion in an effort to bolster its patent portfolio and help its Android partners fight in lawsuits against Apple and Microsoft. A Motorola Mobility spokeswoman told Bloomberg that the company is “vigorously defending … against Microsoft’s patent attack business strategy,” and that the company has also “brought legal actions of our own in the U.S. and in Europe to address Microsoft’s large scale of infringement of Motorola Mobility’s patents.” The U.S. ITC expects to conclude its investigation of the matter by March 5th.

Read

Apple's lawyers in its lawsuit against Samsung are an impatient bunch. First, they asked the court for an accelerated discovery process so they could get their hands on Sammy's forthcoming products ASAP. Then they filed a motion to trim the time until trial and asked for an order shortening the time to file the briefs for that motion. Yesterday, the court told Apple to slow its roll by denying its request to compress the briefing schedule. In doing so, the judge cited Apple's knowledge of Samsung's alleged infringement for more than a year and the fact it engaged in license negotiations with the Korean company during that time -- which the court thinks undermines Jobs and Co.'s argument that they'll suffer substantial harm without a hurried hearing schedule. It's a minor ruling in the grand scheme of things, but it indicates that Apple's cries to condense the time until trial may fall upon deaf judicial ears. Looks like the folks in Cupertino may have to look to the ITC if they want the rocket docket treatment.

Judge denies Apple's request to speed up its suit against Samsung originally appeared on Engadget on Wed, 13 Jul 2011 21:03:00 EDT. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink FOSS Patents  |  Order (PDF)  | Email this | Comments

A federal judge on Tuesday denied Apple’s request for an expedited trial in the company’s patent case against Samsung, FOSS Patents reports. “The Court agrees [with Samsung] that Apple has not established substantial harm or prejudice justifying a shortened briefing and hearing schedule for its Motion to Expedite,” Judge Lucy Koh of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California said. Judge Koh also pointed out that Apple “had been aware of its infringement claims for at least a year and engaged in negotiations with Samsung during that time,” so the company has had more than enough time to consider possible legal courses of action. Apple recently filed requests with both a U.S. district court and with the International Trade Commission seeking a preliminary injunction to block the import and sale of several of Samsung’s mobile devices. Apple calls the devices, which include Samsung’s Galaxy Tab 10.1 and the DROID Charge, “copycat” products that infringe on Apple patents and mimic Apple designs.

Read

Kodak scored a small victory this week in its International Trade Commission (ITC) case against Apple and RIM for their devices' infringement of Kodak's patent on picture previews. Back in January, an ITC administrative law judge (ALJ) made an initial determination that the patent was invalid and that iPhones and Blackberrys don't infringe Kodak's IP. After reviewing the decision per the parties' request, the Commission changed a few of the ALJ's patent claim interpretations and remanded the case for fresh analysis regarding both infringement and validity. Kodak, naturally, is painting the remand as a victory, even going so far as issuing a celebratory press release. Such swagger seems a bit premature, however, as the judge could once again find in favor of the crowds from Cupertino and Waterloo. The next Kodak moment isn't until August 30th, when the ALJ is due to render his ruling. Stay tuned.

Brian Heater contributed to this post.

Kodak granted reprieve in its ITC battle with Apple and RIM originally appeared on Engadget on Sat, 02 Jul 2011 01:41:00 EDT. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink Bloomberg  |  ITC [PDF]  | Email this | Comments

A few weeks back, a patent-holding company called Lodsys began contacting developers and asking them to cough up money for using their in-app purchasing technology without a license. Apple intervened briefly and said that its developers are covered under its own license, but now the company has taken the matter to court with an official movement to intervene. The motion officially states:

Apple Inc. hereby respectfully moves to intervene as a defendant and counterclaim plaintiff in the above-captioned action brought by plaintiff Lodsys, LLC against seven software application developers for allegedly infringing U.S. Patent Nos. 7,222,078 and 7,620,565. Apple seeks to intervene because it is expressly licensed to provide to the Developers products and services that embody the patents in suit, free from claims of infringement of those patents.

Hit the jump for more of the back story.

Apple’s move is in addition to a separate suit from ForSee Results, which filed a declaratory lawsuit against Lodsys on June 10th. Lodsys has remained inexorable in its belief that developers are in debt. “We stand firm and restate our previous position that it is the 3rd party Developers that are responsible for the infringement of Lodsys’ patents and they are responsible for securing the rights for their applications,” Lodsys said in a recent statement. Lodsys has also targeted Android developers, but we have yet to hear what Google’s role in this battle will be.

Read

The legal slugfest between partners-turned-competitors Apple and Samsung continues: Samsung has demanded that Apple release the iPhone 4S/5 and iPad 3 to their lawyers as part of a discovery process to determine if there was any infringement on Apple's part. More »

A federal judge ruled on Monday that Apple, Inc. did not infringe upon the patents of company Mirror Worlds in the creation of its Cover Flow interface. Mirror Worlds filed its initial lawsuit in 2008, claiming that Apple copied technologies protected by its “document stream operating system” filing from 2004. Back in 2010, a U.S. District Court ruled in the plaintiffs favor and awarded Mirror Worlds $625.5 million in damages. Apple appealed, and the ruling was overturned by a federal judge citing a “lack of foundational support” for the charges. “In this case, Mirror Worlds may have painted an appealing picture for the jury, but it failed to lay a solid foundation sufficient to support important elements it was required to establish under the law,” reads the ruling. “Accordingly, the Court rejects Mirror Worlds’ case as to infringement and damages, while affirming it as to validity and inequitable conduct.”

Read

With Apple and its team of lawyers breathing down its back, HTC has been exploring opportunities to quickly bolster its patent library and provide protection for its Android efforts. HTC was rumored to be eyeballing Palm’s large treasure chest of patents, and its acquisition potential, but reportedly snubbed its nose at the ailing handset manufacturer after a closer look at Palm’s financial status. Rather than gamble on a sinking ship, HTC turned towards Microsoft and has signed a licensing deal with the software giant from Redmond. Under the agreement, Microsoft will provide broad coverage under it’s large patent library for HTC’s Android handsets while HTC, in exchange for this patent umbrella, will pay an undisclosed amount of royalties to Microsoft. Horatio Gutierrez, corporate VP and deputy general counsel of intellectual property and licensing at Microsoft had this to say about the deal:

Microsoft has a decades-long record of investment in software platforms. As a result, we have built a significant patent portfolio in this field, and we have a responsibility to our customers, partners, and shareholders to ensure that competitors do not free ride on our innovations. We have also consistently taken a proactive approach to licensing to resolve IP infringement by other companies, and have been talking with several device manufacturers to address our concerns relative to the Android mobile platform.

What do we make of this? Is this strictly business, or is Microsoft simply getting back at HTC for all of their Android efforts?

Read

It’s all lawsuits and complaints galore this year with Apple against Nokia, Nokia against Apple and now Motorola against Research In Motion. Apparently, according to Motorola, RIM is violating five Motorola patents which involve Wi-Fi access, application management, power management and UI. So, Motorola decided to file a complaint with the International Trade Commission, or ITC, in hopes to block the import of any and all devices that violate its patents. We’re guessing that means virtually all new devices. And if RIM decides to side-step the issue and continue delays, Motorola’s IP attorney says:

In light of RIM’s continued unlicensed use of Motorola’s patents, RIM’s use of delay tactics in our current patent litigation, and RIM’s refusal to design out Motorola’s proprietary technology, Motorola had no choice but to file a complaint with the ITC to halt RIM’s continued infringement. Motorola will continue to take all necessary steps to protect its R&D and intellectual property.

We’re guessing, or hoping, that some licensing deals can be worked out between the two companies so things can go on business as usual. But at this point, it’s kinda looking like “If you can’t beat them, block them” on Motorola’s end. What do you guys think? Tort reform!

Read

The untenable direction of the iPhone app ecosystem, shepherded exclusively by Apple, has been apparent to developers for a long time. But coming to a point, it seems, aren't the older problems of reviewer capriciousness—we're talking straight dollars.

Piracy of apps has been a problem virtually since the beginning of the App Store. While the $450 million loss to pirated apps floated today is undoubtedly too high, as others have written, piracy is rampant, and given the size of the ecosystem (literally billions of apps downloaded) we are talking about millions of dollars, even considering that many pirated apps would've never been a sale in the first place. Pirating apps being what I'd call "direct" looting.

On the other side, which Peter Kafka dug into today, is what I'd call indirect looting—masquerade apps, like one that costs 99 cents and repackages the NYT's mobile content, even though the legit NYT app is very much free. No one's "stealing" the NYT app, but they are profiting off of its free content.

Here's the thing: Apple is not merely the exclusive means by which an app enters the App Store, but by extension, Apple controls the only legitimate way for an app to reach an iPhone. This is very different from, say, Macs, where they have virtually no control over what applications are installed or how they get there.

So it's curious, to say the least, that this is their position on IP infringement in the App Store, as told to Peter Kafka:

As an IP holder ourselves, we understand the importance to developers of protecting their IP. We have a process in the App Store for developers to alert us to possible IP infringement. When we're notified, our policy includes the removal of the infringing app until a resolution is reached between the parties.

As he points out, this passive—versus aggressive hunt-and-kill offenders—stance, is the same way Google handles IP infringement on YouTube. (Which we all know is basically a joke, and why we still go to YouTube.) The conflict of interest is, not coincidentally, the same as Google's: Apple makes money (30 percent) on masquerade apps, the same way Google pulls in ad dollars on infringing videos.

The reason to more seriously consider the two problems is that, if some rumors and speculation are true, the Apple Tablet will use essentially the same model as the iPhone for applications, with Apple as the exclusive distributor via the App Store. And if the tablet is The Next Thing in computing, the problems are just beginning. Perhaps an appropriately nuclear response to app infringement is simply waiting for the situation to demand it, or will be announced shortly.

Pirated software obviously isn't a new thing, or exclusive to the iPhone (Photoshop anyone?). The point is simply that by making itself the God of iPhone applications, Apple's put itself in a vastly different position than, say, Microsoft is, when it comes to pirated apps on Windows—one that seems imbued with some sense of responsibility to app developers. (I mean they're approving these apps for sale.) So it's strange to see, at least on the face of things, it's not as zealously blocking IP infringement as it has boobs and dirty words in apps. [ReadWriteWeb, MediaMemo]