Thursday, June 30, 2011

X2Y Attenuators v. Intel, Apple, HP: ITC Investigation Initiated

In addition to the WDPA case filed on May 31, 2011, X2Y Attenuators also filed a complaint with the USITC. Today, the ITC announced initiation of an investigation:

From the USITC:

June 30, 2011

News Release 11-071

Inv. No. 337-TA-781

Contact: Peg O'Laughlin, 202-205-1819

USITC INSTITUTES SECTION 337 INVESTIGATION ON CERTAIN MICROPROCESSORS, COMPONENTS THEREOF, AND PRODUCTS CONTAINING SAME

The U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) has voted to institute an investigation of certain microprocessors, components thereof, and products containing same. The products at issue in this investigation are microprocessors designed for improved power delivery.

The investigation is based on a complaint filed by X2Y Attenuators, LLC, of Erie, PA, on May 31, 2011. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 in the importation into the United States and sale of certain microprocessors, components thereof, and products containing same that infringe patents asserted by the complainant. The complainant requests that the USITC issue an exclusion order and a cease and desist order.

The USITC has identified the following as respondents in this investigation:

  • Intel Corporation of Santa Clara, CA;
  • Componentes Intel de Costa Rica S.A. of Costa Rica;
  • Intel Malaysia Sdn. Bhd of Malaysia;
  • Intel (Philippines) of the Philippines;
  • Intel Products (Chengdu) Ltd. of China;
  • Intel Products (Shanghai) Ltd. of China;
  • Apple Inc. of Cupertino, CA; and
  • Hewlett-Packard Company of Palo Alto, CA.

By instituting this investigation (337-TA-781), the USITC has not yet made any decision on the merits of the case. The USITC's Chief Administrative Law Judge will assign the case to one of the USITC's six administrative law judges (ALJ), who will schedule and hold an evidentiary hearing. The ALJ will make an initial determination as to whether there is a violation of section 337; that initial determination is subject to review by the Commission.

The USITC will make a final determination in the investigation at the earliest practicable time. Within 45 days after institution of the investigation, the USITC will set a target date for completing the investigation. USITC remedial orders in section 337 cases are effective when issued and become final 60 days after issuance unless disapproved for policy reasons by the U.S. Trade Representative within that 60-day period.

Related Posts:

Reporting Patent Cases is Hard

Patent matters are tough to report. Most outlets get things wrong. Take what you read with a grain of salt.

As mentioned in my previous post, the U.S. International Trade Commission gave notice today of a fairly intricate set of determinations in an investigation involving Kodak, Apple, and RIM. As is invariably the case with patent matters, the details of the determinations are being misreported.

This is not surprising. These are complex matters both procedurally and technically. However, it's important that readers know that what they are reading is not always correct. I'll pick out a few such inaccuracies from today's articles to demonstrate.

First, from the AP:

The federal agency did find limited patent infringement. It also sent some matters back to the judge for further review, and Kodak could still prevail in the remaining claims.

The Commission did not find "limited patent infringement." The Commission found that the accused products "infringed" or "practiced" certain limitations of the one patent claim at issue, but the Commission did not itself render an infringement determination. The question of infringement is remanded.

Also from the AP:

The commission also found that Apple and RIM infringed on a patent related to "initiating capture of a still image while previewing a motion image." ...

The commission ruled that Apple and RIM did infringe a Kodak patent under the commission's revised definition of "at least three different colors."

Again, there was no determination by the Commission of infringement announced today, and there is only one patent, and one claim of that patent, at issue. The Commission modified constructions of claim terms and remanded the matter.

From TUAW:

However, two other claims have been restructured by the ITC, siding with Kodak on one claim and not making a determination on a third. The entire case is being sent back to lower courts for further review, giving Eastman Kodak Co. a remote possibility of prevailing with the other claims.

Multiple claims were not "restructured." There is only one patent claim at issue in the investigation. The Commission modified the constructions of terms within multiple limitations of that one claim. The case is also not being sent back to "lower courts." The matter is remanded to the administrative law judge at the ITC.

From AppleInsider:

The commission did however rule that Apple and RIM were guilty of infringing on a Kodak patent related to "initiating capture of a still image while previewing a motion image," and another under the commission's revised definition of "at least three different colors."

Again, the Commission made no such ruling. The Commission found that under the modified constructions, the accused products meet some of the claim limitations. No finding was made regarding overall infringement of that patent claim.

 

Patent cases are very tough to report accurately, especially for a general tech reporter or blogger without a legal background. If you really are interested in patent issues, however, consider taking the extra time and look to more legally-oriented sources who might have a firmer grasp on the subject matter and terminology. You might find that things make more sense.


Related Posts:

Kodak v. Apple/RIM @ ITC: Reconstructed & Remanded

Chief ALJ's claim constructions modified. Invalidity to be revisited. New target date is August 30.

The US International Trade Commission today announced its determination to "affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand in part, the final initial determination of the administrative law judge" in investigation 337-773 initiated by Kodak against Apple and RIM. The key elements of the notice were the Commission's announcement of modifications of the constructions of multiple claim terms important to the ALJ's findings of non-infringement. The matter is remanded to the ALJ so the issues of infringement and invalidity can be revisited under the new constructions. The new target date is August 30.

Kodak shares ended after-hours trading down nearly 15% at $3.05, a market cap decline of over $142M.

Kodak filed its complaint against Apple and RIM with the ITC on January 14, 2010. The ITC issued a Notice of Investigation on February 17, 2010. The investigation centered around claim 15 of Kodak's US Patent 6,292,218 and its applicability to Apple's iPhone 3G, 3GS, and 4, and a variety of RIM devices.

Chief ALJ Luckern's Final Initial Determination was issued January 24, 2011 with a finding that claim 15 is invalid as obvious, and with findings of non-infringement for all of the accused Apple and RIM devices.

To "win," Kodak needed the full commission to reverse both the invalidity -and- non-infringement findings from the Final ID. The full commission did neither, but did modify the claim constructions chosen by the ALJ at the Markman stage such that the non-infringement finding is weakened, particularly with respect to the iPhone 3G and RIM devices. The Commission did not itself address the invalidity finding, but left it to be revisited on remand using the new claim constructions.

Kodak CEO Antonio Perez set expectations of revenue from Apple and RIM similar to the nearly $1B extracted from LG and Samsung when Kodak settled the separate 337-663 investigation.

I will be able to provide opinion and analysis after the conclusion of the investigation.

 

Related Posts:

 

 

2011-06-30 Newly Published Apple Patent Applications

PUB. APP. NO. Title
1 20110162048 LOCAL DEVICE AWARENESS
2 20110162035 LOCATION-BASED DOCK FOR A COMPUTING DEVICE
3 20110161074 REMOTE CONFERENCING CENTER

Of Note

20110162048 LOCAL DEVICE AWARENESS

1. A method of operating an electronic device to find and determine an identity of other local devices comprising:

  • transmitting electromagnetic signals from a first electronic device to find devices within a prescribed distance of the first device;
  • receiving electromagnetic response signals from a second electronic device located less than the prescribed distance from the first electronic device;
  • identifying the second electronic device from the electromagnetic response signals;
  • determining if the second electronic device is aware of other electronic devices within the prescribed distance from the second electronic device; and
  • if the second electronic device is aware of other electronic devices, obtaining identifying information from the second electronic device of the other devices.

 

20110162035 LOCATION-BASED DOCK FOR A COMPUTING DEVICE

1. A method for configuring a computing device comprising:

  • receiving a location indicator of a docking station coupled to a computing device;
  • selecting a system configuration of the computing device based on the location indicator, the system configuration utilizing one or more hardware and software components of the computing device to provide a functionality of the computing device; and
  • altering the functionality of the computing device based on the determined system configuration.

 

Selected Drawings

20110161074 REMOTE CONFERENCING CENTER

 

Screen shot 2011 06 30 at 6 59 36 AM

Thursday, June 23, 2011

Kodak v. Apple/RIM @ ITC: Extended by a Week

New target date is June 30.

The US International Trade Commission announced today a one week extension of the target date in the review of Chief ALJ Luckern's Final Initial Determination in investigation 337-703.

Kodak filed its complaint against Apple and RIM with the ITC on January 14, 2010. The ITC issued a Notice of Investigation on February 17, 2010. The investigation centered around claim 15 of Kodak's US Patent 6,292,218 and its applicability to Apple's iPhone 3G, 3GS, and 4, and a variety of RIM devices.

Chief ALJ Luckern's Final Initial Determination was issued January 24, 2011 with a finding that claim 15 is invalid as obvious, and with findings of non-infringement for all of the accused Apple and RIM devices.

To "win," Kodak will need the full commission to reverse both the invalidity -and- non-infringement findings from the Final ID. Reversal of the invalidity finding would require successful challenges to multiple invalidating combinations of art. Reversal of the non-infringement findings would require modification of the Chief ALJ's constructions of multiple claim terms.

Kodak CEO Antonio Perez set expectations of revenue from Apple and RIM similar to the nearly $1B extracted from LG and Samsung when Kodak settled the separate 337-663 investigation.

 

Related Posts:

2011-06-23 Newly Published Apple Patent Applications

PUB. APP. NO. Title
1 20110154394 User Interface With Menu Abstractions And Content Abstractions
2 20110154309 COMPILER WITH ENERGY CONSUMPTION PROFILING
3 20110154200 Enhancing Media Content with Content-Aware Resources
4 20110154198 MIXED SOURCE MEDIA PLAYBACK
5 20110154163 ACCESSING METADATA WITH AN EXTERNAL HOST
6 20110154084 EFFICIENT SERVICE ADVERTISEMENT AND DISCOVERY IN A PEER-TO-PEER NETWORKING ENVIRONMENT
7 20110153818 EFFICIENT SERVICE ADVERTISEMENT AND DISCOVERY IN MULTIPLE WIRELESS NETWORKS
8 20110153789 EFFICIENT SERVICE ADVERTISEMENT AND DISCOVERY IN A PEER-TO-PEER NETWORKING ENVIRONMENT WITH DYNAMIC ADVERTISEMENT AND DISCOVERY PERIODS BASED ON OPERATING CONDITIONS
9 20110153773 EFFICIENT SERVICE ADVERTISEMENT AND DISCOVERY IN A PEER-TO-PEER NETWORKING ENVIRONMENT WITH COOPERATIVE ADVERTISEMENT
10 20110153647 AUTO-POPULATION OF A TABLE
11 20110153044 DIRECTIONAL AUDIO INTERFACE FOR PORTABLE MEDIA DEVICE
12 20110151725 MALE PLUG CONNECTOR
13 20110151724 FEMALE RECEPTACLE CONNECTOR
14 20110149502 PORTABLE HARD DRIVE AND MOUNTING STRUCTURE FOR SAME
15 20110149094 IMAGE CAPTURE DEVICE HAVING TILT AND/OR PERSPECTIVE CORRECTION
16 20110149087 Joint Bandwidth Detection Algorithm For Real-Time Communication
17 20110148936 Associating Media Content Items With Geographical Data
18 20110148912 DISPLAY COLOR CORRECTING SYSTEM

Of Note:

Tony Fadell is the first listed inventor on the male plug / female receptacle connector applications.

 

The four "efficient service advertisement" applications could be ones to watch:

 

20110154084 EFFICIENT SERVICE ADVERTISEMENT AND DISCOVERY IN A PEER-TO-PEER NETWORKING ENVIRONMENT

1. A machine-implemented method for advertising a service in a peer-to-peer networking environment, the method comprising:

  • broadcasting, by a local device, a service advertisement in a wireless network, the service advertisement including one or more service identifiers (IDs) identifying one or more services being advertised and an availability schedule of the local device;
  • listening, by the local device, in the wireless network according to the availability schedule of the local device; and
  • in response to a service request received from a remote device during the availability window, transmitting a service response to the remote device, the service response having detailed information associated with one or more services identified by one or more service IDs in the service request.

 

20110153789 EFFICIENT SERVICE ADVERTISEMENT AND DISCOVERY IN A PEER-TO-PEER NETWORKING ENVIRONMENT WITH DYNAMIC ADVERTISEMENT AND DISCOVERY PERIODS BASED ON OPERATING CONDITIONS

1. A machine-implemented method for advertising a service in a peer-to-peer networking environment, the method comprising:

  • monitoring operating conditions of a local device coupled to a wireless network;
  • dynamically adjusting an advertisement period based on the operating conditions of the local device; and
  • broadcasting, by the local device, a service advertisement in the wireless network according to the adjusted advertisement period,
  • the service advertisement including one or more service IDs for identifying one or more services to be advertised from the local device.

 

Wednesday, June 15, 2011

Lodsys: Hints from the '078 File History

A patent's file history can provide interesting admissions from the applicant about the limitations of the claims. The admissions in the '078 file history could be problematic for Lodsys' current assertions.

During prosecution of the Abelow '078 patent now asserted by Lodsys, an Office Action issued containing a 102(e) rejection based on Kaplan, US 5,237,157. Briefly, the Kaplan '157 disclosed a jukebox that elicited feedback from the user about particular CDs loaded within.

 

Screen shot 2011 06 15 at 9 11 01 PMScreen shot 2011 06 15 at 9 10 15 PM

Figures from the Kaplan '157. Feedback is solicited about the CDs, not the jukebox. Abelow's attorney said that kept Kaplan from anticipating the Abelow '078 claims.

 

Inventor Dan Abelow's attorney said the Kaplan '157 did not anticipate Abelow's claims, meaning Kaplan did not disclose every element of Abelow's claims. His attorney made the following distinction:

"In addition, if the Examiner for the sake of argument considers music kiosks in Kaplan to be "units of a commodity," one still would not have arrived at the claimed invention since a kiosk user-interface in Kaplan allows a user to rate music CDs but is not configured to elicit from a user information about the user's perception of the kiosk."

Abelow '078 File History, Arguments of Attorney Michael V. Messinger, 9/29/2005 (emphasis added)

 

So, we know from Mr. Messinger's arguments on behalf of Mr. Abelow that a distinguishing feature of the '078 is that information about the "unit of a commodity" itself is elicited, not information about what is loaded within. Thus, the '078 is limited to things like, perhaps, a fax machine that elicits information from the user about the fax machine itself. Conveniently, the Abelow '078 patent has a picture of precisely that.

Screen shot 2011 05 31 at 11 03 07 PM

Figure 2 of the Abelow '078 patent asserted by Lodsys

In view of this limitation, for a system of iPads to meet the limitations of claim 1 of the '078, each iPad would need to be configured to elicit information from the user about the iPad itself, not the about an app or about something else. In the case of a ForSee survey, the survey computer would need to be eliciting information about the survey computer itself, not about a different web site or about sneakers.

This narrowed interpretation of the claims by the prosecuting attorney is no surprise. The attorney was explaining what the claims actually say.  Unfortunately, Lodsys now seems to be saying something quite different.

 

Previous Coverage:

 

Lodsys: What to Do If You Receive a Lodsys Letter

This is a cross-post of a guest post I wrote for Groklaw on June 14, 2011. Also see the follow-up post from Mark Webbink, new editor of Groklaw, Executive Director of the Center for Patent Innovations, a research and development arm of New York Law School's Institute for Intellectual Law & Property, and former Red Hat General Counsel.

 

What to Do If You Receive a Lodsys Letter
~ by Patrick T. Igoe, Esq.

If you are a developer and you receive a letter from Lodsys alleging patent infringement, my primary advice, of course, must be, "see an attorney." However, the more you know, the better, faster, and more efficiently an attorney can help you.

Background

On May 13, 2011, developers of iOS apps began reporting receipt of letters from Lodsys, LLC.  In the letters, Lodsys CEO Mark Small asserted that the developers were making use of technology covered by patents now owned by Lodsys. We have since learned that The New York Times and customers of ForSee Results and OpinonLab were also receiving Lodsys letters in that timeframe.

According to Lodsys, Dan Abelow, the inventor listed on the asserted patents, began his patenting efforts in 1988.  He sold the resulting portfolio to Intellectual Ventures, which assigned them to a holding company, in 2004. Intellectual Ventures licensed them to certain of its customers, then sold off the remaining rights, which ended up with Lodsys, LLC, which is now asserting the patents.

In the case of at least some of the iOS developers, Lodsys set a twenty-one day deadline from the May 11 letter date for developers to respond. Lodsys indicated separately that its licensing terms were "0.575% of US revenue over for the period of the notice letter to the expiration of the patent, plus applicable past usage." Lodsys did not wait the full twenty-one days, instead filing suit in the Eastern District of Texas on May 31.

The stated goal of Lodsys is to "make relatively small amounts per licensee, but to have the large volume of licensees aggregate to be a worthwhile business." Given that business plan, Lodsys can be expected send letters to many more developers.

If you receive a letter from Lodsys, my primary advice, of course, must be, "see an attorney." However, the more you know, the better, faster, and more efficiently an attorney can help you.

Read the Patent, Not the Blogs.

It should go without saying, but do not believe everything you read on the Internet, especially about patent cases. It appears, especially with patent coverage, that the desire to post quickly or mold the story to fit an agenda often trump factual analysis.

For instance, early articles and posts about Lodsys repeatedly parroted Lodsys' own broad characterization of the patent claims, using phrases like "a patent on Apple's in-app purchase system." One commentator, based on just an abstract, went even further than Lodsys, saying a patent seemed to cover "any kind of communication over a network."

Even worse, nearly all Lodsys coverage overlooked two very fundamental questions:

  • Do the patent claims cover anything similar to Apple's in-app purchase system?
  • Do the patent claims cover developers' use of such a system?

Those questions can only be answered with consideration of the patent and its claims.

Focus on the Patent Claims.

Infringement of a patent is defined in 35 U.S.C 271. Generally speaking, to be liable for infringement, an accused direct infringer must make, use, sell, or import the patented invention, or perform all of the steps of the patented process. A party may also be liable for inducing infringement or providing a component specifically for use in infringement.

Patents end with claims. Those claims define the bounds of the legal monopoly granted by the patent. The patent claims are used to determine whether or not there is infringement. That makes the patent claims extremely important. (Despite their importance, you will find massive blog posts on some sites giving advice about Lodsys that fail to even mention the patent claims or hint that they have been read.)

Here is a claim that is being asserted against iOS developers by Lodsys, claim 1 of US7,222,078:

1. A system comprising:

  • units of a commodity that can be used by respective users in different locations,
  • a user interface, which is part of each of the units of the commodity, configured to provide a medium for two-way local interaction between one of the users and the corresponding unit of the commodity, and further configured to elicit, from a user, information about the user's perception of the commodity,
  • a memory within each of the units of the commodity capable of storing results of the two-way local interaction, the results including elicited information about user perception of the commodity,
  • a communication element associated with each of the units of the commodity capable of carrying results of the two-way local interaction from each of the units of the commodity to a central location, and
  • a component capable of managing the interactions of the users in different locations and collecting the results of the interactions at the central location.

Regardless of your level of familiarity with patents, "in-app purchase" is not the phrase that will come to mind. You also do not need to be a patent expert to find some more specific problems with Lodsys' infringement assertions.

First, this is a system claim requiring multiple units of a hardware device, but the claim is being asserted against iOS application developers and companies using server-based solutions from other companies, like ForSee Results. In the case of the iOS developers, the "units of a commodity" under any reasonable claim mapping would seem to be the iPhone, iPod Touch, or iPad. The accused developers do not make or sell iOS hardware. Second, the "component capable of managing the interactions" sounds much more like Apple's iTunes Store servers than anything produced by an iOS developer.

Thus, I argued it would be Apple, if anyone, not the iOS developer, who would be making, using, or selling most of such a system. Apple seemed to agree and sent Lodsys a letter saying as much. Apple has since filed a motion to intervene in the case, asserting that Apple itself is licensed to the Lodsys patent and that developers' use of Apple's systems and APIs would be covered under the license if the patented technology was used.

Question the Claim Chart.

The burden is on the patent-holder to show that you are infringing the patent. Many times, the demand letter or "offer of a license" will come with a claim chart. Claim charts are supposed to show how each element of a patent claim is or is not embodied in a product or process. Expect an NPE like Lodsys, however, to point out only the strengths of such a mapping, not the weaknesses.

In every Lodsys claim chart I have seen, Lodsys has cherry-picked a few words from each claim element, put them in a yellow bubble, and pointed to a portion of a screen shot of the targeted company's application or a browser showing the third-party web pages. Patent infringement, however, involves all of the words in every element of the patent claim.

When evaluating the claim chart, focus on the claim language that was left out. Ask why it was left out. The answer may very well be that the language was left out because you do not infringe the claims as they are written.

Don't Listen to the Doomsayers. Consider an Active Defense.

Not only did most commentators fail to ask the important questions about the patent claims, but some even asserted that the answers to those questions did not matter. The basic argument was: The patent system is broken. The developers have no reasonable choice but to pay. It costs too much to fight. A license is cheaper than talking to an attorney.

The success of a Lodsys-like business model, collecting small amounts from a large number of companies based on questionable claims of infringement, requires a low transaction cost for each collection. Targets that roll over without a fight, even when they are not infringing, keep transaction costs low and enable the business model.

However, if transaction costs rise through legitimate defenses or declaratory judgment actions, the business model is strained. Lodsys needs developers to think it is cheaper to settle than it is to fight. Developers should consider, however, whether filing a declaratory judgment action in their own district might have the possibility of creating a less costly and more satisfying resolution. With a declaratory judgment action, it is Lodsys that is faced with a dilemma. For a small or medium sized target, it may be more economically sensible for Lodsys to drop the demand for the small licensing fee even if they somehow feel they could win. It may be especially compelling if major weaknesses are identified in the infringement case, as I believe they could be here.

While the first targeted iOS developers did not follow the declaratory judgment path, larger Lodsys targets now have. ForSee Results, OpinionLab, ESET, and The New York Times have all filed such actions, asserting non-infringement and invalidity of the Lodsys patents.  Lodsys now must deal with cases in at least three jurisdictions. Lodsys may try to consolidate the cases, but things have already gotten more expensive.

Finally, Again, Talk to an Attorney.

Developers should not take legal advice from the Internet, and especially not from a non-attorney blog or a software development podcast. Every legal situation is different, which is why it is important to see an attorney. Show the attorney the claim chart you received. Analyze the claim language that was left out of the claim chart. Assess whether you could even be capable of infringing the patent. Then, discuss with your attorney whether to fight or just settle based on cost concerns. Be informed when you make the decision.


For much more detail on these points, see my Lodsys posts at applepatent.com.


Patrick T. Igoe, Esq. is the founder of Igoe Intellectual Property, LLC in Philadelphia, PA. He is a registered Patent Attorney with over a decade of prior experience in the architecture, design, implementation, and management of large-scale embedded-systems software. Mr. Igoe holds a B.S. in Computer Science, an M.S. in Software Development, and an M.S. in Imaging Science from RIT, an M.B.A. from Duke, and a J.D. from Temple. He is an inventor on ten issued U.S. patents in the digital print, social networking, and digital home entertainment spaces.


Tuesday, June 14, 2011

Nokia v. Apple: Settled (for now)

According to Bloomberg:

Nokia Oyj (NOK1V) won an almost two-year patent struggle against Apple Inc. (AAPL), as the world’s two largest mobile-phone makers settled litigation in a deal that awards a one-off payment and royalties to the Finnish handset maker.

Nokia rose as much as 4.1 percent in Helsinki trading. The agreement will bolster the Devices & Services unit’s second- quarter profitability, Espoo, Finland-based Nokia said in a statement today. The details of the contract, under which Apple will pay Nokia an undisclosed sum and royalties for the term of the agreement, are confidential, the Finnish company said.

...

A critical point going unreported is whether Nokia received a cross-license to Apple's patents that will cover them as they devolve into a hardware supplier and distribution channel for Microsoft. Whether Microsoft is licensed may now be more important than whether Nokia is licensed. (SEE UPDATE BELOW)

While this is positive news for Nokia, the rumored amount of the settlement is unlikely to make up for Nokia's plunging revenues even for a quarter. At the time of this writing, Nokia shares are still well below their immediate post-warning level.

Update via telegraph.co.uk:

In a statement, Apple said "Apple and Nokia have agreed to drop all of our current lawsuits and enter into a license covering some of each others' patents, but not the majority of the innovations that make the iPhone unique. We're glad to put this behind us and get back to focusing on our respective businesses."

This will not be the end of Apple and Nokia's patent battles.

 

Previous coverage:

2011-06-14 Newly Issued Apple Patents

PAT. NO. Title
1 RE42,459 Full-Text Mobile telephone terminal with improved utility
2 D639,748 Full-Text Magnetic connector
3 7,962,855 Full-Text Method of displaying an audio and/or video signal in a graphical user interface (GUI)
4 7,962,730 Full-Text Replaying memory operation assigned a load/store buffer entry occupied by store operation processed beyond exception reporting stage and retired from scheduler
5 7,962,637 Full-Text Dynamic adjustments of video streams
6 7,962,634 Full-Text Submission of metadata content and media content to a media distribution system
7 7,962,542 Full-Text Method and apparatus for inverse discrete cosine transform
8 7,962,449 Full-Text Trusted index structure in a network environment
9 7,962,031 Full-Text Pulsed control of camera flash
10 7,961,476 Full-Text Stiffening plate for circuit board and switch assembly
11 7,961,469 Full-Text Method and apparatus for distributing a thermal interface material
12 7,961,151 Full-Text Antennas for compact portable wireless devices
13 7,961,007 Full-Text Receiver to match delay for single ended and differential signals
14 7,960,684 Full-Text Side cured light-transmissive display system
15 7,960,682 Full-Text Display device control based on integrated ambient light detection and lighting source characteristics
16 7,959,065 Full-Text Custom content gift cards

 

Monday, June 13, 2011

Lodsys: NYT, OpinionLab follow ForSee, ESET with DJs

On June 13, 2011, both the New York Times and OpinionLab, Inc. filed motions for declaratory judgment against Lodsys, LLC in the Northern District of Illinois. These cases come on the heels of ForSee's June 6 filing, also in the Northern District of Illinois, and ESET, LLC's filing on June 10 in the Southern District of California.

From the OpinionLab complaint:

 

This is an action for declaratory relief that: (a) the OpinionLab Online User Feedback Technology (as defined herein) does not infringe any valid claim of United States Patent Nos. 5,999,908 (“the ‘908 patent”), 7,133,834 (“the ‘834 patent”), 7,222,078 (“the ‘078 patent”) or 7,620,565 (“the ‘565 patent”) (collectively, the “Patents-in-Suit”); and (b) the claims of each of the Patents-In-Suit are invalid and unenforceable. This is also an action for injunctive relief against LodSys that it be permanently restrained and enjoined from making any further allegations that OpinionLab and its clients and customers are infringing any of the claims of the Patents-In-Suit. This is also an action for damages against LodSys because its intentional, unfounded, and repeated allegations of infringement have the tendency to cause, and have caused, confusion, mistake, and deception in the marketplace and have inflicted harm to the goodwill, reputation, and business interests of OpinionLab in the business community in this judicial district and beyond.

 

Both OpinionLab and the New York Times seek declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity of the Lodsys patents.

Screen shot 2011 06 13 at 10 43 22 PM

 

Previous Coverage: