Wednesday, June 1, 2011

X2Y Attenuators v. Intel, Apple, HP

On May 31, 2011, X2Y Attenuators, LLC filed a complaint for patent infringement in the Western District of Pennsylvania.

The patents at issue are United States Patent Nos. 6,738,249 (“the 249 patent”); 7,110,227 (“the 227 patent”); 7,609,500 (“the 500 patent”); 7,733,621 (“the 621 patent”); and 7,916,444 (“the 444 patent”).  The patents relate to energy conditioning in electronic circuits.  The infringement allegations all appear to relate to Intel's Core iX processors.

With regard to Apple:

13. Intel, Apple, and Hewlett-Packard have infringed and continue to infringe the 249 patent by engaging in acts constituting direct infringement, contributory infringement, and/or inducement of infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271 et seq., including but not necessarily limited to one or more of making, using, selling, and offering to sell, in this District and elsewhere in the United States, and importing into this District and elsewhere in the United States, without authority, products and services including but not necessarily limited to microprocessors and products that contain microprocessors, including personal computers.

14. Upon information and belief, one such microprocessor includes the Intel Core i7-950 3.06GHz 8M L3 Cache LGA1366 Desktop Processor.

15. Upon information and belief, one such personal computer includes the Apple iMac 27"/3.20/2x2GB Model No: A1312 personal computer sold with an Intel Core i3 processor.

Similar assertions are made with regard to the '227, '500, '621, and '444.

The patents have complex histories.  For instance, the '444 states:

This application is a

  • continuation of application Ser. No. 12/554,976, filed Sep. 7, 2009 now U.S. Pat. No. 7,768,763,
  • which is a continuation of application Ser. No. 11/866,437, filed Oct. 3, 2007, now abandoned,
  • which is a continuation of application Ser. No. 11/296,391, filed Dec. 8, 2005, now issued as U.S. Pat. No. 7,321,485,
  • which is a continuation of application Ser. No. 10/189,339, filed Jul. 2, 2002, now issued as U.S. Pat. No. 7,110,235,
  • which is a continuation-in-part of application Ser. No. 10/115,159, filed Apr. 2, 2002, now issued as U.S. Pat. No. 6,894,884,
  • which is a continuation-in-part of application Ser. No. 09/845,680, filed Apr. 30, 2001, now issued as U.S. Pat. No. 6,580,595,
  • which is a continuation-in-part of application Ser. No. 09/777,021, filed Feb. 5, 2001, now issued as U.S. Pat. No. 6,687,108,
  • which is a continuation-in-part of application Ser. No. 09/632,048, filed Aug. 3, 2000, now issued as U.S. Pat. No. 6,738,249,
  • which is a continuation-in-part of application Ser. No. 09/594,447, filed Jun. 15, 2000, now issued as U.S. Pat. No. 6,636,406,
  • which is a continuation-in-part of application Ser. No. 09/579,606, filed May 26, 2000, now issued as U.S. Pat. No. 6,373,673,
  • which is a continuation-in-part of application Ser. No. 09/460,218, filed Dec. 13, 1999, now issued as U.S. Pat. No. 6,331,926,
  • which is a continuation of application Ser. No. 09/056,379, filed Apr. 7, 1998, now issued as U.S. Pat. No. 6,018,448,
  • which is a continuation-in-part of application Ser. No. 09/008,769, filed Jan. 19, 1998, now issued as U.S. Pat. No. 6,097,581,
  • which is a continuation-in-part of application Ser. No. 08/841,940, filed Apr. 8, 1997, now issued as U.S. Pat. No. 5,909,350.

That is so many generations that if this patent were a person, the last patent in that list might have come to the US on the Mayflower.

 

More to follow if the case moves forward.

 

No comments: