The mobile phone patent punch-up

23 October 2011 Last updated at 16:31 GMT By Leo Kelion Business reporter Google came to HTC's aid in its patent disputes with Apple The patent system was created to spur on innovation. But over recent years it has sparked an arms war between some of the world's leading mobile phone companies.

The likes of Apple and Microsoft do not only sue their rivals to protect their own inventions, but go on to buy third party patents to build up their weapon stockpile.

What is more, they appear increasingly willing to litigate.

The number of handset patent infringement filings to the US courts grew from 24 cases in 2006, to 84 cases in 2010, according to Lex Machina, an intellectual property litigation data provider.

It expects that number to grow to 97 cases this year, reflecting more than a four-fold rise in the space of half a decade.

"Filings in this litigation space appeared to have hit a plateau this summer, but are now strongly back on the rise," says Lex Machina's chief executive, Josh Becker.

Accelerated innovation

Part of the problem is the speed at which the industry is evolving.

The US patent system offers inventors a limited monopoly on new ideas lasting twenty years from when they are filed. However, mobile phone users expect giant leaps in progress over a much shorter time span.

Continue reading the main story

We all lose when the central competitive arena switches from serving customers to winning at high-stakes litigation”

End Quote Prof Kevin Werbach Pennsylvania University As the devices transform into music players, cameras, internet browsers and beyond, they involve an increasing amount of intellectual property.

There are now potentially more than 250,000 active patents relevant to a single smartphone, according to RPX, a San Francisco based patent aggregator and licensor.

"The devices we used 10 years ago to make voice calls have become hand-held computers incorporating a vast array of software and hardware, which increases the breadth of patent exposure," said RPX's chief executive, John Amster.

"And this problem increases with the capabilities of these devices to do new things.

The lawyers become involved when a company either doesn't want to share its advances, or wants to be paid a fee for their use. Some experts believe this is now becoming a default tactic.

Continue reading the main story

Lawsuits between major mobile handset makers. Click on the names to see who is suing whom

"For some time, the threat of mutually assured destruction among the major technology players such as IBM and Microsoft limited the outbreak of patent warfare," says Kevin Werbach, associate professor of legal studies and business ethics at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School.

"Today however, especially in the mobile market, asymmetric threats are widespread. There may be a few local winners in the mobile patent wars, but we all lose when the central competitive arena switches from serving customers to winning at high-stakes litigation."

Keeping track of the tangled web of claims and counter claims is becoming a complex task in itself.

Microsoft is suing handset maker Motorola Mobility over its use of video coding and other patents, but Motorola is counter suing over Microsoft's implementation of email, instant messaging and Wi-fi.

Continue reading the main story

When you get two technology giants battling each other, they will always ensure there is no sign of weakness”

End Quote Florian Mueller FOSS Patents Motorola is being taken over by Google, which is being sued by Oracle over its use of the Java programming language in its Android operating system.

Google also intervened in HTC's legal fights against Apple, selling some of its patents to the Taiwanese handset maker. HTC claims Apple violates its power management technology and other innovations, while Apple challenges the way HTC uses touch screens and gesture recognition.

Meanwhile, Apple has used patent and design-related rights lawsuits to prevent Samsung Electronics from selling its Galaxy Tab 10.1 tablet computer in Australia and Germany. The South Korean firm has retaliated trying to ban iPhone sales in Japan and Australia.

LG, Sony, Ericsson, Kodak and Nokia have also been active in the courts.

Samsung's Tab 10.1 is at the centre of a legal dispute with Apple Litigation contagion

Florian Mueller keeps track of developments at his blog, Foss Patents, and was recently commissioned by Microsoft to study certain types of patent litigation.

"When you get two technology giants battling each other, they will always ensure there is no sign of weakness," he says.

"So you will see one firm counter-suing against the other, even if their claim is of dubious merit, to make sure they don't go down without a fight."

"Litigants look for jurisdictions that they believe are favourable to their interests, which can give them a quick win... as a result the disputes spread geographically."

Continue reading the main story

We don't allow others to... get a free ride on the back of our innovation”

End Quote Louise Pentland Chief legal officer, Nokia However, Nokia stresses decisions to take legal action are not taken lightly.

The Finnish phone maker recently settled a patent lawsuit with Apple after the US firm agreed to pay a one-off charge and ongoing royalties.

"Our industry requires significant R&D. Nokia alone has invested around 45bn euros ($61.8bn, £39.4bn) in the past two decades," the firm's chief legal officer, Louise Pentland, told the BBC.

"Companies which use the resulting inventions must have permission and compensate those who took the risks and invested to create them."

"So, though litigation is not Nokia's preferred option, we don't allow others to use our intellectual property without authorisation or get a free ride on the back of our innovation," says Ms Pentland.

Legal logic

While Nokia tackled Apple head-on, the iPhone maker and Microsoft are litigating against handset makers using Google's Android system, rather than the search giant itself.

Google does not charge for the software, but instead relies on its partners' devices driving users to its various search services. The firm's latest results show its mobile advertising business is generating revenue at rate of $2.5bn a year, so giving away Android for "free" makes financial sense.

However that creates a major problem for its rivals.

Microsoft's business model relies on handset makers paying for the right to use its Windows Phone 7 system. Apple has to price in the development costs of its iOS system when selling its iPhones.

Microsoft's solution seems to be to force Android manufacturers to pay it a royalty if they use Google's software. At least that was the outcome of patent talks with HTC in 2010 and Samsung last month.

The terms have never been disclosed, but Citigroup analyst, Walter Pritchard, believes HTC and Samsung pay Microsoft between $1-5 for each Android handset sold.

"I think with approximately 50% of Android handsets covered by royalty arrangements, they will continue to pursue the same course of legal action... for the remaining smaller Android players," Mr Pritchard says.

By contrast, Apple seems more intent on keeping its innovations proprietary.

"We spend a lot of time and money and resource on coming up with incredible innovation and we don't like it when someone else takes those," said Apple's chief executive, Tim Cook, after the firm released its most recent results.

He declined to elaborate further.

However, a recent court filing by one of Apple's lawyers revealed it could be willing to license Samsung some of its "lower-level patents", but in return Samsung would need to agree to "cease copying the features and functionality" of Apple's products.

Apple has agreed to pay royalty fees to Nokia, but has not disclosed the amounts involved Patent price inflation

As patent attacks become more common place, companies are stocking up on ammunition.

In December 2010, Microsoft, Oracle, Apple and the data specialist EMC spent $450m on 882 patents, and patent applications, belonging to Novell, an ailing infrastructure software provider.

That sum was then dwarfed by the $4.5bn paid in July for a 6,000 strong patent portfolio belonging to bankrupt telecoms manufacturer, Nortel. Microsoft and Apple shared the library with Blackberry maker, Research in Motion, and three others.

Then, in September, Google revealed plans to buy Motorola Mobility, and its 24,500 patent library, for $12.5bn.

Notably, the deal was secured one month after Google's Chief Legal Officer, David Drummond, wrote a blog titled "When patents attack".

"Our competitors are waging a patent war on Android," he said.

Continue reading the main story

We're in a situation now of patent poker where the deck has been redealt and everyone has a new hand”

End Quote Ben Wood CCS Insight "Unless we act, consumers could face rising costs for Android devices - and fewer choices for their next phone."

Although vast sums are involved, experts say it could prove cost-effective if the acquisitions encourage cross-licensing deals under which firms swap permission to use each others' inventions.

"We're in a situation now of patent poker where the deck has been redealt and everyone has a new hand, and all the patent lawyers are saying we need to review our positions," says Ben Wood, chief of research at mobile analysts CCS Insight.

"I would like to think this might result in renewed sanity and a realisation that trying to kill each other in court isn't to the greater good of the industry."

However others are less optimistic.

"As long as major companies feel they need to shore up their patent portfolios, we'll continue to see patents valued as defensive assets in a total war, rather than based on their potential for value creation," says Professor Werbach.

"While in the short run Nortel's creditors and Motorola's shareholders may have benefitted from patent price inflation, the overall impact will be significant market distortion."

On Tuesday, we will look at the role of so-called patent trolls in the mobile patent wars, and whether fair licensing rules can boost the industry.

View the original article here

Read More

Mobile firms vs the patent trolls

24 October 2011 Last updated at 22:46 GMT By Leo Kelion Technology reporter A recent study claimed "patent trolls" cost industry billions of dollars a year Patent litigation among the world's leading mobile phone companies is on the rise.

Barely a week goes by without a development, whether it is Apple and Samsung trying to prevent each others' products from going on sale, or Microsoft forcing another handset maker to pay it a licence fee for the alleged use of its technologies in Google's Android software.

However the legal action is not limited to the big brand names.

Experts also point to a rise in activity of so-called patent trolls - a derogatory name given to organisations that aggressively defend patent libraries without releasing products of their own.

This, the second of two reports into the patent wars, starts by exploring their role.

Unsurprisingly, litigants try to avoid being associated with Scandinavian folkloric monsters wherever possible.

So the industry uses the term "non-practicing entity" to refer to organisations that own and license patents without producing goods of their own.

One of the best known is Intellectual Ventures, which has a library of more than 35,000 patents.

Set up by a former Microsoft executive, Nathan Myhrvold, it recently revealed it has earned over $2 billion through licensing its portfolio to others since 2000.

Like the phone makers it is willing to take legal action to protect its assets.

Earlier this month it sued Motorola Mobility, accusing the handset maker of using its technology to perform updates, file transfers and other functions on its Android phones.

Intellectual Ventures declined to contribute to this report, but previously referred to the case saying: "We will not tolerate ongoing infringement of our patents to the detriment of our current customers and our business."

Expensive Continue reading the main story

Some manufacturers hold back some patents so they have a weapon to deploy against competitors”

End Quote Jonathan Radcliffe Mayer Brown International A recent study, called "The private and social costs of patent trolls" by Boston University law professor, James Bessen, suggests such cases are not uncommon.

He found NPEs initiated more than 2,600 lawsuits against US companies in 2010, more than five times the number than were filed in 2004.

Based on the resulting damage to the defendants' stock prices, he estimates the actions cost them more than $83bn a year over the last four years.

You might think that would act as an incentive for the technology giants to license patents from their inventors, rather than risk court action.

However, Professor Bessen says the reverse is true because successful claims are often the result of "inadvertent" infringements.

Since companies are having to put aside money to cover these lawsuits, he claims they then have less cash to pay for third party innovations.

"The defendants in these lawsuits are firms that already invest a lot in innovation," Professor Bessen said.

"Their losses make it more expensive for them to continue to do so and it also makes them less willing to license new technologies from small inventors."

Fight back

The rise of the NPEs has led to creation of a new type of business, which describes itself a "defensive patent aggregator".

Apple used the FRAND defence to prevent Samsung from banning sales of its iPhone in the Netherlands

One of the first examples is a company called RPX. It was co-founded three years ago by John Amster, an ex-employee of Intellectual Ventures.

Like NPEs, RPX owns a patent library which it licenses out. But it markets its service to others as protection against legal disputes, vowing never to launch a patent lawsuit of its own.

For an annual fee its clients are offered use of RPX's portfolio to help them countersue or settle third party claims. The firm then reinvests part of its earnings to further extend its patent collection.

The service appears to be popular. The firm's prospectus says its clients include Sony, Sharp, Samsung, Nokia and Google.

"The high transaction costs associated with NPE litigation are a tax on the tech industry," Mr Amster told the BBC.

"Today, nearly 50 cents of every dollar spent does not make it to the patent owner."

RPX's fees may help save its clients money in the long run, but it all adds to the costs of the patent wars.

The FRAND defence

Another way companies can limit their costs is to claim the technology involved is essential to an industry standard.

When a new technology - such as JPEG format photographs, or the GSM telephone network - is created, industry player agree to license related patents on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms.

Continue reading the main story

I worry about the overhead that large players will have to spend in defensive patent manoeuvres”

End Quote Kevin Werbach Pennsylvania University This means the patent owner's fee cannot be excessive and it is not allowed to discriminate who gets to use the innovation

The idea is to ensure different companies' products can communicate and share data formats with each other.

"Consumers benefit from this because standards promote interoperability of products and processes, as well as encouraging 'intra-standard' rivalry between multiple manufacturers who each want to be the best in that field, and beat the others," said Jonathan Radcliffe, a London-based partner at the law firm Mayer Brown.

Apple used the FRAND defence against Samsung in the Netherlands earlier this month when a Dutch court ruled that the South Korean firm's 3G patents were part of essential standards, and could not be used to ban iPhone sales.

However, enforcing FRAND standards opens the door to another set of potential abuses.

Companies may be tempted to over-declare their number of FRAND-type patents in order to attract extra fees. The more patents they declare as essential to a standard, the larger the number of license charges they can potentially claim.

Conversely, firms may prove coy at the declaration stage.

Mr Radcliffe said that in cases where the standard setting organisation fails to issue clear rules "some participants might be tempted to hold back some patents so they have a weapon to deploy against competitors to keep them off the market and/or to force a significantly higher payment".

Collateral damage

In September President Obama signed into law a bill reforming the US patent system. It is due to come into effect in March 2013.

The new rules allow businesses to examine newly granted patents and challenge the decision to grant them within a nine month window, potentially heading off the prospect of court action.

It also places new limits on NPEs, preventing them from launching infringement claims against multiple targets unless there is evidence of collusion. The new principle of "one defendant-one lawsuit" should mean they sue fewer firms.

However, other proposals to restrict the freedom to file lawsuits and limit damages awards were abandoned.

"It makes some useful technical changes, but does nothing to address the core problems," says Kevin Werbach, associate professor of legal studies and business ethics at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School.

"I worry about the overhead that large players will have to spend in defensive patent manoeuvres, and the innovative start-ups that will never get off the ground because of threats from patent holders."

It looks like the patent wars, and their fallout, are set to spread.

View the original article here

Read More

Patent wars

9 September 2011 Last updated at 15:19 GMT Tech firms are battering their opponents with patents around the world The patent wars roll on, with Apple winning another battle today in the German courts, ensuring that Samsung's Galaxy Tab will stay off the shelves in that country for the time being.

But here in the UK I've just heard of another case involving a much smaller business which has been drawn into one of these disputes.  

David Hart, whose digital agency Codegent has a sideline in making smartphone applications, took delivery of a hefty package from the USA this morning.

It was from a firm called Lodsys, and in David's words contained "a hundred pages of legal gobbledegook." But it was accompanied by the threat of legal proceedings so for a small business it was worrying as well as confusing

Lodsys, you may remember, is a business based in Texas which has acquired a number of software patents and has set about threatening a series of developers of popular smartphone apps with legal action unless they agree to pay licensing fees.

And that was the gist of the letter received by David Hart this morning.

In it, Lodsys asserts that it owns a series of US patents that cover a wide range of interactions between app users and providers. These range from providing online help, to conducting online subscription renewals, to selling upgrades. In other words, just about any aspect of the way a smartphone app might operate.

With the letter came a series of illustrations of how one Codegent app - which teaches you Chinese - had made use of this patented technology.

One screen shot illustrates a patent on "units of commodity that can be used by respective users in different locations" which has apparently been employed in Codegent's Learn Chinese Android app.

Unsurprisingly, Mr Hart was more baffled than ever: "Are they seriously saying that they've patented numbers?" he asked me.

Some might choose simply to ignore such a letter, but further down comes the information that Lodsys patents have already been licensed by major firms including Apple, Google, Nokia and Microsoft. The implication being that if giants recognise the validity of the Lodsys patent claims, then minnows better follow suit.

What the letter does not say is that both Apple and Google have told Lodsys to lay off iPhone and Android app developers.  Apple says it has licensed some of the patents and that means anyone developing apps for its platform does not need to pay again. And Google appears to be going further by challenging the validity of some Lodsys patents.

"We've asked the US Patent Office to reexamine two Lodsys patents that we believe should never have been issued," says Kent Walker, Google's General Counsel. " Developers play a critical part in the Android ecosystem and Google will continue to support them."

What this highlights, say critics of patents,  is the absurdity of a system which makes it far too easy to claim ownership of dubious software innovations and then use them as legal battering rams.  After all, the figures show that in 87% of cases where patent claims are re-examined they are either cancelled or substantially altered.

So where does that leave Codegent? Still in a state of uncertainty. "We haven't got deep pockets to pay lawyers," says David Hart. " Are we going to be shielded by Apple or Google? Should we just ignore the letter? What we want is clarification."

And of course the irony is that the big players like Apple and Google are themselves knee-deep in the business of using patents to try to batter their opponents in a fiercely competitive smartphone market.  

There are still plenty of defenders of a patent system as a vital protection for inventors which fosters innovation. But when small firms are put in fear of multi million dollar lawsuits by businesses whose only business is patent-licensing, that argument looks hard to sustain.

Lodsys did not respond to a request for comment, but previously Chief Executive Mark Small told me the firm had "made the decision not to do press interviews and apply our resources to licensing discussions".

View the original article here

Read More

This Day in Tech: Microsoft plans to press Android patent case

Filed Under:

Too busy to keep up with the tech news? Here are some of the more interesting stories from CNET for Friday, August 19.

• In a hearing Monday before the International Trade Commission, Microsoft plans to press its case that Motorola's Android-powered devices violate its patents. The hearing will focus on the validity of Microsoft's patents and on whether Motorola infringed on them. The hearing should last 10 days.

• What are the risks of wireless medical devices? One security researcher discovered that he could hack his wireless insulin pump and remotely control it. "The second reaction was one of maybe sheer terror, to know that there's no security around the devices which are a very active part of keeping me alive," security researcher Jay Radcliffe said. U.S. lawmakers are looking into the situation.

• HP's shares dropped 20 percent after the company announced its plan to ditch its PC business. Meanwhile, stocks of U.K. software company Autonomy shot up 76 percent, after HP announced that it was acquiring Autonomy for $10.25 billion.

• Apple allegedly messed with an image of the Galaxy S smartphone to make it look more like the iPhone 4, a sister site of Computerworld reported. The site also claimed that Apple touched up pictures of the Galaxy Tab to make it look more like the iPad. The fight between Apple and Samsung is one of the more heated disputes going on in tech these days.

• The FTC tweeted that it will not pursue Ashton Kutcher for failing to disclose his investments in many of the tech companies profiled in a special online issue of Details magazine he guest edited.

• Mozilla hopes to help Web apps match phone apps, so developers have to write only one, cross-platform application. Mozilla, developer of the Firefox Web browser, plans on doing this through a project called WebAPI.

• Germany doesn't like Facebook. The "like" button on Facebook has been declared illegal in Germany. CNET reports, "the state of Schleswig-Holstein has ordered all government offices to remove the button from their Web presence and shut down any Facebook 'fan' pages, on the grounds that these things violate German and European data privacy laws." If the sites don't comply, they could pay a fine of up to 50,000 Euros.

If you have a question or comment for Boonsri Dickinson, you can submit it here. However, because our editors and writers receive hundreds of requests, we cannot tell you when you may receive a response.

Boonsri Dickinson is a multimedia journalist who covers science, technology, and start-ups. She is a contributing editor at CBS SmartPlanet, and her work has appeared in Wired, New Scientist, Technology Review, and Discover magazine. E-mail Boonsri.

Your destination for the latest news on enterprise-level information technology, from chip research and server design to software issues including programming, open source, and patents.

View the original article here

Read More

Microsoft's Android patent claims get tested Monday

Filed Under:

The first test of Microsoft's claims that device makers running Google's Android mobile operating system have infringed on its patents comes Monday.

That's when Administrative Law Judge Theodore R. Essex of the U.S. International Trade Commission will hear Microsoft's claims against Motorola, in one of the most closely watched patent disputes in techdom. Microsoft filed claims last October that Motorola's Android-based smartphones infringe on nine patents related to syncing e-mail, calendar, and contacts, and notifying applications about changes in signal strength and battery power. Microsoft brought the dispute before the ITC in order to block shipments of Motorola devices from manufacturing facilities abroad before they hit U.S. soil. Both Microsoft and Motorola declined to comment on the hearing.

Microsoft has filed similar claims with the ITC against other mobile-device makers, including Barnes & Noble for its Nook electronic reading tablet. Apple has similarly sued Taiwanese handset maker HTC over claims that its handsets infringe on iPhone patents.

The hearing that begins Monday at the ITC's headquarters in Washington, D.C., will focus on the validity of Microsoft's patents and on whether Motorola infringed on them. In addition to Microsoft and Motorola making their cases, lawyers from the ITC may also chime in to guide Judge Essex. The hearing is scheduled to last about 10 days.

But don't expect an instant verdict. The judge will make an initial determination later this year, followed by a final judgement in 2012. If he rules that Motorola did infringe on Microsoft's patents, he could then issue an injunction blocking shipments of devices in dispute.

While Google is not a party to the litigation, it will loom large in the case. Earlier this month, Google sought to bar one of Microsoft's expert witnesses from testifying, arguing that Microsoft improperly disclosed Android source code with him. Last week, Essex denied that request, ruling that Google didn't appear to make an attempt to resolve the matter within the rules he has set for the case.

Microsoft also has a separate lawsuit in federal court in Washington state alleging the same patent infringement claims. And, as is typical in patent disputes, Motorola has filed a countersuit, accusing Microsoft of infringing 16 patents in its Xbox gaming console and in Windows for servers, PCs, and mobile devices.

If you have a question or comment for Jay Greene, you can submit it here. However, because our editors and writers receive hundreds of requests, we cannot tell you when you may receive a response.

Jay Greene, a CNET senior writer, works from Seattle and covers Microsoft, Google and Yahoo. He's the author of the book, Design Is How It Works: How the Smartest Companies Turn Products into Icons (Penguin/Portfolio). He started writing about Microsoft and technology in 1998, first as a reporter for The Seattle Times and later as BusinessWeek's Seattle bureau chief.

Stay up-to-date on news centered in Redmond, Wash., from acquisitions to product updates to leadership developments.

View the original article here

Read More

This Day in Tech: Microsoft plans to press Android patent case

Filed Under:

Too busy to keep up with the tech news? Here are some of the more interesting stories from CNET for Friday, August 19.

• In a hearing Monday before the International Trade Commission, Microsoft plans to press its case that Motorola's Android-powered devices violate its patents. The hearing will focus on the validity of Microsoft's patents and on whether Motorola infringed on them. The hearing should last 10 days.

• What are the risks of wireless medical devices? One security researcher discovered that he could hack his wireless insulin pump and remotely control it. "The second reaction was one of maybe sheer terror, to know that there's no security around the devices which are a very active part of keeping me alive," security researcher Jay Radcliffe said. U.S. lawmakers are looking into the situation.

• HP's shares dropped 20 percent after the company announced its plan to ditch its PC business. Meanwhile, stocks of U.K. software company Autonomy shot up 76 percent, after HP announced that it was acquiring Autonomy for $10.25 billion.

• Apple allegedly messed with an image of the Galaxy S smartphone to make it look more like the iPhone 4, a sister site of Computerworld reported. The site also claimed that Apple touched up pictures of the Galaxy Tab to make it look more like the iPad. The fight between Apple and Samsung is one of the more heated disputes going on in tech these days.

• The FTC tweeted that it will not pursue Ashton Kutcher for failing to disclose his investments in many of the tech companies profiled in a special online issue of Details magazine he guest edited.

• Mozilla hopes to help Web apps match phone apps, so developers have to write only one, cross-platform application. Mozilla, developer of the Firefox Web browser, plans on doing this through a project called WebAPI.

• Germany doesn't like Facebook. The "like" button on Facebook has been declared illegal in Germany. CNET reports, "the state of Schleswig-Holstein has ordered all government offices to remove the button from their Web presence and shut down any Facebook 'fan' pages, on the grounds that these things violate German and European data privacy laws." If the sites don't comply, they could pay a fine of up to 50,000 Euros.

If you have a question or comment for Boonsri Dickinson, you can submit it here. However, because our editors and writers receive hundreds of requests, we cannot tell you when you may receive a response.

Boonsri Dickinson is a multimedia journalist who covers science, technology, and start-ups. She is a contributing editor at CBS SmartPlanet, and her work has appeared in Wired, New Scientist, Technology Review, and Discover magazine. E-mail Boonsri.

Your destination for the latest news on enterprise-level information technology, from chip research and server design to software issues including programming, open source, and patents.

View the original article here

Read More

Angry Birds maker in patent suit

 

 Angry Birds is one of the most downloaded applications on iPhones, iPads and Android devices Rovio, the Finnish maker of the Angry Birds game, is being sued by a licensing company for infringing its patents.

Lodsys has said that Rovio and other developers violated its patents with games on Apple's iOS platform and Google's Android.

Lodsys is embroiled in lawsuits with other big technology companies, including Apple.

Rovio said it had not received any direct contact regarding the complaint.

"As soon as we receive more information we will take appropriate action," a spokesperson said.

Angry Birds is one of the most popular game applications.

Rovio marketing chief Peter Vesterbacka said last week that the game had surpassed 300 million downloads.

Lodsys, a company that licenses patents but does not have any other business, added five new defendants to a suit filed in May with a US district court in Texas.

Along with Rovio, it named Electronic Arts, Take-Two Interactive which makes Grand Theft Auto, Atari and others in the list of companies it says are violating its patents.

Take-Two declined to comment. Electronic Arts and Atari were not immediately available for comment.

View the original article here

Read More

Apple playlist patent suit winner hits replay for repay

Personal Audio, the company that was awarded $8 million in damages from Apple in patent infringement ruling earlier this month, has come back with a new lawsuit taking aim at additional Apple products it says infringe on the same intellectual property.

In a suit filed today in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, picked up by patent tracking blog FOSS Patents, Personal Audio alleges that Apple's sixth-generation iPod Nano, fourth-generation iPod Shuffle, fourth-generation iPod Touch, iPhone 4, and iPad 2 all infringe on the company's patented audio technology. Personal Audio is seeking additional damages for this group of products, which were not included in its first lawsuit.

"The jury instructions given by the Court specifically instructed the jury to disregard any evidence that Personal Audio was entitled to damages relating to products not accused in that litigation," Personal Audio wrote in today's filing. "Furthermore, the verdict form instructed the jury to award damages only for the conduct the jury found to infringe. Consequently, the damages award issued by the jury on July 8, 2011, does not cover any other products."

By that logic, Personal Audio says this handful of other allegedly infringing Apple products that were not included in the original case, still violate its IP in the same way as the others and should now be included.

Apple did not immediately respond to a request for comment about the suit.

Personal Audio is a nonpracticing entity--meaning it licenses patents but doesn't actually have any other business. The group filed its first case back in 2009 seeking $84 million in damages, alleging that Apple was violating two of its patents: US patent No. 6,199,076, "Audio program player including a dynamic program selection controller" and No. 7,509,178, "Audio program distribution and playback system." Today's suit targets Apple for infringing on just the '076 patent.

View the original article here

Read More