Tag: lawsuit

Apple Ordered to Pay $626 Million in Patent Infringement Case

Apple, in a case that has been jumping around from one court to another since 2012, has been dealt a major blow. Apple has been ordered to pay VirnetX Holding corp a cool $626 million for violating patents related to FaceTime and iMessage amongst other technologies that the jury determined had been patented by VirnetX, and hence are its property.

VirnetX, is commonly known as a patent troll across the industry because of its habit of targeting tech companies and making almost all of its revenue from patent licensing and lawsuits. It has sued a number of tech companies over the past decade and has famously settled disputes with Microsoft over patents used in Skype, and made $200 million from the Redmond-based company in another patent infringement related case in 2010.

This recent verdict is in continuation from a case where a jury had found Apple guilty of violating the same patents back in 2012.The company then was asked to pay an amount of $368 million to VirnetX.

Apple appealed and won on a technicality, but as it is with the judicial system, the appeals court vacated the damages and sent the case back down to a bench at a District Court for retrial, where the jury found Apple guilty and ordered it to pay even more money to VirnetX because it found it guilty of “willfully” violating the company’s patents.

Reacting to the decision a member of the legal team from Apple said that the company would appeal the decision. The company argued that the patents in question are not valid.

“We are surprised and disappointed by the verdict and we’re going to appeal. Our employees independently designed this technology over many years, and we received patents to protect this intellectual property. All four of VirnetX’s patents have been found invalid by the patent office. Cases like this simply reinforce the desperate need for patent reform,” he said.

February 5, 2016
Apple Wins Lawsuit Against Samsung, 9 Samsung Devices Banned from Sale

Say hello to yet another courtroom drama between Samsung and Apple. As always, the bone of contention was patent infringement where Apple accused Samsung of having stolen features like word recommendations and unlock gestures.

Judge Lucy Koh of the Northern California District San Jose court agreed with Apple leading to banning of Samsung’s flagship devices from 2012. The list of devices now banned from sale in the US includes Samsung Admire, Galaxy Nexus, Galaxy Note, Galaxy Note II, Galaxy S II, Galaxy S II Epic 4G Touch, Galaxy S II Skyrocket, Galaxy S III and Samsung Stratosphere.

The lawsuit had been stretched over a period of three years before the final verdict was passed. This means there has been three new generations of smartphones since the first violation of patents. Other than many sellers making some extra dough by selling these banned Samsung devices for a higher-than-normal price on eBay, one wonders what else this verdict could lead to. While Samsung may not feel too amused at this point, this is a blow it will definitely recover from without much effort.

Besides, it wouldn’t be too long before Samsung’s gets a chance to even out the two scores once the two companies find themselves pitted against each other again in another courtroom scenario. Hold your breath until then.

January 20, 2016
US Woman Sues Twitter For Allowing ISIS Accounts on its Platform

A woman in the US has sued Twitter for allowing official ISIS accounts to run on its platform, sparking off yet another debate about the exchange of content on social media.

This lawsuit follows an attack by an ISIS member on November 9th when he shot down five people to death in Jordan. Two of them happened to be Americans. The husband of the plaintiff was one of the two American victims. The lawsuit demands unspecified damages from Twitter.

The fact that ISIS is immensely tech-savvy and uses various social media platforms to assert its presence has been a topic of debate for a while now. The extremist group has a team of social media experts to take care of the content it puts up on different networking websites. But all of these networking portals defend themselves by stating that they are simply the channels of content-exchange, with no participation in the creation of this content whatsoever.

Websites like Facebook, Twitter and YouTube are protected by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. It means that these websites are exempt from laws that would otherwise make them responsible for the content that users put up on their platform.

However, the lawsuit claims, “for years, Twitter has knowingly permitted the terrorist group ISIS to use its social network as a tool for spreading extremist propaganda, raising funds and attracting new recruits. This material support has been instrumental to the rise of ISIS and has enabled it to carry out numerous terrorist attacks.”

Twitter defended itself in an official statement where it claimed, “While we believe the lawsuit is without merit, we are deeply saddened to hear of this family’s terrible loss. Like people around the world, we are horrified by the atrocities perpetrated by extremist groups and their ripple effects on the Internet. Violent threats and the promotion of terrorism deserve no place on Twitter and, like other social networks, our rules make that clear.”

Source

January 15, 2016
Samsung Drags Apple to Supreme Court Over Patent Lawsuit

Looks like the two tech-giants have taken it upon themselves to take care of the drama front of the tech world. As lawsuits and courtroom scenes between Samsung and Apple continue to persist, here’s the latest update.

Samsung had agreed to pay Apple $548 million this month after negotiating an initial penalty of $1 billion over a patent copyright infringement lawsuit. While many saw this as a stroke of luck for Samsung to be able to pay only half the amount of the initial fine, Samsung clearly disagrees.

The company requested the verdict to be over-turned by the Supreme Court by filing a motion with the highest court in the United States. Samsung believes the previous jury was not given enough material to understand the patent thoroughly.

Since the cases in the American Supreme Court are chosen by the justices, there is no surety that Samsung will get a chance to fight it out with Apple there. But if it does indeed land up there, both companies will be required to make 30 minute long oral-arguments each, along with file briefs. Time to bring out the popcorn and sit-back, folks. Team Samsung or Apple?

December 15, 2015
Ex-BlackBerry CEO Lands Another Company in Trouble, Gets Sued For It

If you thought you were having it rough today, think again. Turns out that ex-BlackBerry CEO Torsten Heins just can’t seem to catch a break – even at his new job as CEO of a wireless charging technology company called Powermat Technologies. Heins, who left BlackBerry back in 2013 after overseeing the gigantic failure of the BlackBerry 10, is now being sued at his new workplace by three members of his own board for allegedly “operating without an approved budget and steering the business into insolvency.”

In fact, one of the three members is Powermat Technologies very own founder and former CEO Ran Poliakine. The suit alleges that Heins and three other executives have created “serious trust crisis” by running the company without an approved budget. Of course, Heins and his fellow executives have denied the allegations.

“Powermat is optimistic that the court will see through the substantial misstatements and malicious half-truths leveled by the former CEO and allow the company to continue the substantial progress it has made over the past year,” the company said in a statement sent to Business Insider.

The lawsuit was filed in October and there has been no progress since then. It will be interesting to know how Heins will try get out of this one. It’s sufficient it to say that the past few years have not been kind to the man.

December 12, 2015
Xiaomi is Being Sued by a US Firm for Patent Infringement

Xiaomi is being sued by a US firm by the name of Blue Spike, LLC. In a complaint filed in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Blue Spike has alleged that several of Xiaomi’s mobile devices, including the upcoming Mi 5 and Mi 5 Plus, are infringing on a patent titled “Data Protection Method and Device”.

Other handsets that are included in the lawsuit are the Mi 4, Mi 4 LTE, Mi 4c, Mi 4i, Mi Note Plus, Mi Note Pro, Redmi 1S, Redmi 2, Redmi 2 Prime, Redmi 2 Pro, Redmi 2A and Redmi Note 2. However, the Mi 4 and Redmi 2 Pro have already cleared FCC.

But what really makes one stamp a giant question mark on this story is that the US firm doesn’t appear to have much credibility to its name. The company claims its business revolves around Address Space Layout Randomization (“ASLR”) software, systems, and technology. However, their website seems to show no clients or products. All this suggests that Blue Spike LLC, which has also filed lawsuits against other companies like Google and Apple, is merely a patent troll.

Source

December 8, 2015
Legal Trouble For Apple, Company Could Face $862 Million Penalty

The tech giant has found itself at the centre of legal trouble with a US jury. It has been ruled out that Apple is using technology patented by the University of Wisconsin. The patent in question involves the chips used in iPhone, iPad Mini, and iPad Air.

Apple was sued last year in April by the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (WARF) and now it may have to pay a fine of almost a billion USD. WARF claims that the A7, A8, and A8X processors used in the iPhone 5S, 6, and 6 Plus were developed from technology that had already been patented by the University in 1998.

If during the course of the legal proceedings, it is discovered that Apple used the technology in its devices while having knowledge of the patent, the fine amount may go up.Irrespective of whether or not Apple has to pay this ridiculously huge fine, there is some more trouble in store for the company. Last month, WARF sued Apple for the technology used in its newest iPhones and iPad Pro. WARF has had a track record of suing tech companies in the past, including a law suit with Intel in 2008 which lasted for almost a year.

October 14, 2015
Indian Company Sues Apple for the ‘iPhone’ Trademark

The iPhone has been considered one of the most game-changing products in recent history. It truly began the age of smartphones by giving a clear direction for other companies to follow.It is the most prominent smartphone in the market and has brought a great deal of revenue for the Cupertino-based giant; making its name synonymous with Apple’s. Now, in a surprising turn of events, an Indian company is challenging Apple for the trademark of the “iPhone”.

iVoice Ventures, claims that it owns the trademark for ‘iFon’ and hence is going to challenge the patent application of the iPhone in India. The company has filed four cases against granted and pending rights of the iPhone brand name in India.

iVoice said that the company is planning to bring budget smartphones under the name of iFon. They added that Apple’s original challenge to the company’s brand name had caused it “insurmountable challenges and irrevocable losses in ramping business during 2008/2009.” iVoice stated that it wants to revamp their business and for that it is necessary to secure their intellectual property rights for the iFon brand name.

It seems like Apple’s legal trouble refuse to die down. The tech giant was recently ordered to shell out $532.9 Million in a case involving their iTunes app. Apple has been planning a major expansion drive in India and is planning to open 500 retail stores here. It might be an easy battle for Apple as the company has a barrage of lawyers and resources to win such cases or at least, come to an amicable settlement.

March 4, 2015
Adobe, Intel, Google, and Apple Reach Settlement in Employee Poaching Lawsuit

Silicon Valley’s biggest names got together to a reach a settlement in an employee poaching lawsuit. The case was filed against Apple, Google, Intel and Adobe in 2011 by tech sector workers. It stated that these tech giants limited job mobility for workers and thus limited salary growth too. Now these companies have come together for an agreement to settle the case.

Last year, U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh in San Jose, California, rejected the settlement amount of $324.5 million, calling it too low. The settlement was rejected after one of the complainant objected to the amount. That complainant has agreed to the new undisclosed settlement amount which was offered by the tech giants. Judge Lucy Koh has said that to match the earlier settlement, the amount must be at least $380 million to address the loss of potential wages to the employees.

The case is mostly based on the emails between Apple Co-founder Steve Jobs and ex-Google CEO Eric Schmidt along with heads of other rival companies. The emails detailed their plans to resist from poaching each others’ top engineers. This would lead to limited opportunity for the engineers to grow in the market.

The complainants (plaintiffs) will be filing a detailed explanation of the new deal “imminently”. The Judge will then have the option of accepting or rejecting the settlement. Guess the lesson from this case is to be good at your job, but not that good that your employer will try to keep you in forever.

January 14, 2015
Google To Face Hefty Fine For SimpleAir Push Notification Patent Infringement

SimpleAir is seeking $125M in damages from Google after a jury found that push notification services in Android infringe on a SimpleAir patent, the company said Tuesday.

The accused services are the Google Cloud Messaging (GCM) and Android Cloud to Device Messaging (C2DM) services. The services are used by Google to process and send instant notifications for Android applications, such as Facebook, Twitter, and Gmail.

It’s worth noting that Google isn’t the first company to run into trouble with SimpleAir. Microsoft, Apple and even Blackberry all have licensing agreements with the company, after all.

Because the jury did not agree on how much to award in damages, a limited second trial will be held to determine the amount. SimpleAir said in a press release that it will seek US$125 million, though it did not specify how it had calculated the amount.

[modal heading=”Press Release” text=”Press Release” size=”btn-medium”]Federal Jury Finds Google Infringed SimpleAir Patent January 21, 2014 03:45 PM Eastern Standard Time MARSHALL, Texas–(BUSINESS WIRE)–SimpleAir announced today that a federal jury returned a verdict that SimpleAir’s U.S. Patent No. 7,035,914 is infringed by Google. The verdict was reached on Saturday, January 18, 2014, following a week-long trial presided over by the Honorable Rodney Gilstrap, U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Texas. “We are grateful for the jury’s hard work in this case and pleased with their verdict” SimpleAir had alleged that Google’s push notification services for the Android smartphones and tablets infringed five claims of the ‘914 patent. The jury agreed unanimously on all counts of infringement and also found unanimously that each claim was valid. The validity of the patent had previously been confirmed by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office during a Reexamination proceeding that concluded in February 2013. The accused services are the Google Cloud Messaging (GCM) and Android Cloud to Device Messaging (C2DM) services. The services are used by Google to process and send instant notifications for Android applications, such as Facebook, Twitter, and Gmail. The jury was unable to reach a unanimous decision on the amount of damages to award for Google’s infringement. The damages issue will be decided by a separate jury in a limited second trial. SimpleAir will seek damages in excess of $125 million for Google’s infringement in the damages retrial. “We are grateful for the jury’s hard work in this case and pleased with their verdict,” said John Payne, who is the lead inventor and majority owner of SimpleAir. “There was a lot of information presented to the jury and they did an exceptional job figuring out what mattered and what didn’t. We look forward to addressing the issue of damages in the second trial and hope the jury in that trial will be as dedicated as this one was.” SimpleAir is an inventor-owned technology licensing company. The company holds eight issued U.S. Patents and several pending patent applications in the areas of wireless content delivery, mobile applications, and push notifications. SimpleAir has licensed its inventions to many leading technology companies. SimpleAir is represented by Greg Dovel, Jeff Eichmann, and Simon Franzini of Dovel & Luner LLP and by Calvin Capshaw, Elizabeth DeRieux, and Jeff Rambin of Capshaw DeRieux LLP.[/modal]

January 23, 2014
Samsung to Pay $290 Million More To Apple

A jury on thursday decided that Samsung will have to pay Apple a sum of $290,456,793 more for its patent infringement case. This comes after Samsung has already been asked to shell out 1 billion US $ to Apple. This amount is still less than what Apple had demanded, which was $390 Million.

The total money Samsung has paid or will pay to Apple has now reached approx. $930 million, just to let you get a fair idea it is approx. 5833,23,90,000 in Indian Rupee.

For Apple, this case has always been about more than patents and money,” Apple said in a statement. “It has been about innovation and the hard work that goes into inventing products that people love. While it’s impossible to put a price tag on those values, we are grateful to the jury for showing Samsung that copying has a cost.”

Samsung, said it is “disappointed by today’s decision, which is based in large part on a patent that the US Patent and Trademark Office has recently deemed invalid.”

While we move forward with our post-trial motions and appeals, we will continue to innovate with groundbreaking technologies and great products that are loved by our many customers all around the world,” the Korean company said in a statement.

During the session, Apple said that if Samsung did not use infringement devices they would have sold alot of iPhone’s throughout the world. Apple claimed that Samsung was the reason for the company to not earn more profits from iPhone’s, so Samsung should compensate it.

On the other hand, Samsung showcased reports of why people bought Samsung phones. Samsung showcased that all of its consumers got attracted towards bigger screens, better battery and alot more.

However, as said by the jury members: Samsung didn’t provide enough information to make its case. We hope this ends the lawsuit, and both the companies continue the innovation and stop the endless war.

Have something to say? Share your view below.

November 23, 2013
Nikon To Sue Polaroid, iM1836 is a Look Alike of J1
Look at the cameras in the above image, from left to right you can see the Polaroid iM1836 and the Nikon J1. Do you notice any similarity ? Nikon does, as Nikon has filed a lawsuit with the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Sakar International, Inc for the alleged infringement of the design patent and trade dress right owned by Nikon. However, here are some features from both the cameras:

Polaroid iM1836 features:
- 3.5″ Touchscreen display
- 18.1 MP
- HD Video
- ISO Upto 3200
- HDMI Output
- Detachable Flash Unit
Nikon J1 Features:
- 10.1 megapixel Camera
- CMOS Image Sensor
- Full HD Recording
- 3 inch LCD Monitor with Protection Glass
- ISO 100 – ISO 3200 Sensitivity
- 35 mm Equivalent Focal Length: 27 – 81 mm
- f/3.5 – f/5.6 Aperture
[toggle title=”Press Release “]Nikon filed a lawsuit in the U.S. for design patent and trade dress infringement

October 15, 2013

On October 11, 2013 (US Eastern Time), Nikon Corporation (having its principal place of business in Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo, President: Makoto Kimura) and Nikon Inc. (having its principal place of business in New York, President & CEO: Nobuyoshi Gokyu) (collectively, hereafter referred to as “Nikon”) filed a lawsuit with the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Sakar International, Inc. (having its principal place of business in New Jersey) (hereafter referred to as “Sakar”) for the alleged infringement of the design patent and trade dress right owned by Nikon. Nikon seeks injunctive relief against Sakar in the lawsuit to prevent them from manufacturing and selling their Polaroid brand digital still camera, “Polaroid iM1836”.

Nikon makes a great effort to create designs that can be differentiated from other companies’ products, as well as to strongly deter the imitation of its designs. Although Nikon has negotiated with Sakar to amicably solve this problem, we could not reach an agreement. Consequently, Nikon decided to initiate the lawsuit by necessity.

The abovementioned design patent and trade dress right are related to the Advanced Camera with Interchangeable Lenses “Nikon 1”.[/toggle]
October 15, 2013
3D Realms Drops Duke Nukem Lawsuit Against Gearbox

When Gearbox released Duke Nukem Forever back in 2011, the game studio hadn’t anticipated that it will be slammed with a massive lawsuit by the original creators of Duke Nukem, 3D Realms. The legendary studio sued Gearbox for skimping on paying royalties on Duke Nukem Forever. But after a long tug of money war, a new press release issued earlier today revealed that 3D Realms has officially dropped the lawsuit

In its lawsuit 3D Realms argued that Gearbox had “refused and failed to make substantial royalty payments” related to the deal and that Gearbox had failed to take over responsibility for a $2.9 million loan – which was also allegedly part of that same agreement.

It also included a statement from Scott Miller, the CEO of 3D Realms (also known as Apogee Software), who apologized for the damage it had done to its relationship with Gearbox.

“After reviewing evidence regarding our business affairs, and without any money exchanging hands, we have satisfactorily resolved any and all differences that we perceived against Gearbox,” Miller wrote. “In all sincerity, we regret the misunderstanding that instigated our lawsuit. Now that we better understand–and appreciate–the actual nature of our business matters, we have voluntarily withdrawn our claims against Gearbox, with genuine apologies to Randy [Pitchford, president of Gearbox] for any damage that our lawsuit may have caused to the relationship.”

[Via]

September 14, 2013
Samsung Sued In Brazil After Ministry Of Labor Finds Labor Rights Violations

To prepare a box with mobile phone battery charger, headset and two instruction manuals, employee of the Samsung factory located in Zona Franca de Manaus has only six seconds. After this step, the package is transferred to the employee following the assembly line, who’s mission is to scan the package at two different points and then paste stickers. In a single day, the task gets to be repeated up to 6,800 times by the same worker, as seen on the website Reporter Brasil.

One of the factories built by the multinational of South Korean origin, in 2012 reported record a net income of $ 22.3 billion. Here a TV is placed in a cardboard box every 4.8 seconds and the assembly of a smartphone, made by dozens of workers arranged along the production line takes 85 seconds. Whereas, One split air-conditioner is ready in less than two minutes.

According to Reporter Brasil, Brazil’s Ministry of Labor has filed a lawsuit against the Korean company for poor working conditions in the smartphone assembly plant located in Zona Franca de Manaus. Accusations include few chairs to sit on, excessive work hours without rest and an excess of health problems.

In a statement to the Brazilian publication, Samsung says

it will cooperate fully with authorities and have pledged to ensure “the highest industry standards regarding safety, health and well-being.”

Due to the health risks of the employees imposed by the fast pace and the repetitive activity of the assembly line, The government sued for a collective moral damages of at least U.S. $ 250 million from Samsung.

Samsung was prosecuted in Brazil in 2011 over poor working conditions. It has also been accused of hiring children in China and faced a flurry of lawsuits in South Korea from workers seeking compensation for health hazards at its factories.

[via]

August 16, 2013
Tokyo Court Rules In Favour Of Apple Against Samsung On Patent

A Tokyo court ruled on Friday that Samsung Electronics had infringed on rival Apple’s patent for a “bounce-back” feature on earlier models of its popular smartphones.

The rubber-banding patent refers to the bouncing animation that takes place when a user scrolls past the end of a page while on a mobile device.

Samsung has already changed its interface on recent models to show a blue line at the end of documents, the report noted.

The Tokyo District Court issued a partial verdict Friday in favor of Apple. Damages were not announced. A final verdict is expected later.

Apple and Samsung are embroiled in similar battles in the U.S., South Korea, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Britain, France and Australia.

The Japanese court’s decision comes after the US Patent and Trademark office judged in April that Apple’s patent for the bounce-back feature was invalid, allowing older Samsung models that had a similar feature to remain on sale.

Samsung and Apple, the world’s two biggest smartphone makers, have each scored victories in patent disputes fought over four continents since the maker of the iPhone accused Asia’s biggest electronics maker of “slavishly copying” its devices. The companies, are competing for dominance of a global mobile-device market estimated by researcher Yankee Group at $346 billion in 2012.

Further details regarding the Tokyo court’s decision will be announced when the final ruling is handed down later today.

[Via]

June 21, 2013