Microsoft, TomTom End Legal Dispute

The high-profile legal dispute between Microsoft and TomTom has reportedly come to an end.  Although specific terms of the agreement were not disclosed, TomTom will pay Microsoft for coverage under its patents, and Microsoft will receive coverage under four TomTom patents as well, reports MarketWatch.

The dispute originated in February, as Microsoft filed suit against TomTom, alleging that the GPS maker was infringing on eight of its patents related to car-navigation.  TomTom countersued soon after, stating that its intellectual property was being infringed by Microsoft.

Shortly after filing their countersuit, TomTom joined the Open Invention Network, an organization that accumulates defensive patents in order to protect Linux from patent infringement lawsuits.  This maneuver led many to believe that there might be a bigger fight on the horizon between the Open Invention Network and Microsoft.

Yet, this agreement has quieted any such conflict.  In addition to paying Microsoft, TomTom has also agreed to remove some of its functionality related to file-management system patents within two years.  Also, TomTom’s coverage for Microsoft’s patents is designed to be compliant with the free software-licensing system adhered to by open-source providers.

Oracle & Alcatel-Lucent Settle Litigation

The patent infringement lawsuit surrounding Oracle and Alcatel-Lucent has now come to an end.  As reported by the Daily Herald, Oracle had sued Alcatel-Lucent in May, claiming that their OmniTouch My Messaging system infringed on Oracle patents.  Although terms of the agreement are confidential, one can safely assume that the agreement pleased both parties, as Alcatel-Lucent had countered the suit by claiming that Oracle’s patents were invalid.

The dispute started in December 2007, when Alcatel-Lucent wrote a letter claiming that Oracle’s Data Mining, E-mail Center, Data Guard and other products infringed on their patents.  Since then, 13 patents have come into question, five of which belong to Oracle, and seven to Alcatel-Lucent.  The last patent is the property of Siebel System Inc., which was acquired by Oracle in 2005.

The case was ordered closed on March 26, by a California district judge.  While Oracle was not available for comment, Alcatel-Lucent stated that they were “glad to put this matter behind us.”

Apple Named in Two New Lawsuits

As if the lawyers for Apple weren’t already busy enough, Affinity Labs of Texas LLC has accused the company of infringing on three patents.  The patents are titled “System and method for Communicating Selected Information to an Electronic Device,” “Audio System and Method,” and “Content Delivery System and Method.”  According to Ars Technica, Affinity Labs claims that these patents cover buying songs from the iTunes store, and downloading songs from iTunes onto an iPod or iPhone.  It is also claimed that these patents cover playing digital audio on an iPod or iPhone with external speakers.

Before reacting to this news, it should be mentioned that the lawsuit was filed in patent infringement-friendly Eastern Texas.  Also, the patents seem to be a bit broad, since it seems as if they would apply to every audio device that plays digital audio.  Affinity Labs has similar suits pending against car manufacturers, in which the defendants have filed countersuits.  Can you say “patent troll?”

Accolade Systems LLC has also named Apple in a lawsuit, after it named Micron and Aptina as defendants as well.  Accolade claims that their patent, “Method and Apparatus for Detecting Camera Sensor Intensity Saturation,” is violated by Apple as the iPhone automatically adjusts the brightness of a screen based on surrounding light.  Other cellphones and products also have this feature, so it remains unclear as to why the suit is being launched against Apple.

While it seems as if Apple may be able to wiggle its way out of these lawsuits, Apple’s bottom line may be hurt as it still must pay money to defend itself.

Exploding iPod Results in Lawsuit

Apple has recently been named in a number of lawsuits, most of them touching on patent infringement.  But one lawsuit strays from this topic, as according to CNET News, the mother of a 15-year-old boy is suing Apple after an iPod Touch exploded in the boys pants, burning his leg. 

According to the complaint, the boy “realized his Apple iTouch had exploded and caught on fire in his pocket….[he] immediately ran to the bathroom and took off his burning pants with the assistance of a friend.  The Apple iTouch has burned through the plaintiff’s pants pocket and melted through his Nylon/Spandex underwear, burning his leg.”

The exploding iPod Touch supposedly gave the boy second-degree burns, and $225,000 is being sought in compensatory and punitive damages.  Yet, many more facts must come to light before it is known exactly what happened to that particular iPod Touch.

There have been previous cases where mobile devices have caused similar injuries due to explosions.  The causes of those explosions can normally be attributed to faulty batteries added by the user.  But, the iPod Touch’s battery is not replaceable by the user.

iPhone Faces Suit Over its Role as E-Book Reader

It appears as if Apple has been named as a defendant in a recent suit filed by Monec Holding.  According to CNET News, Monec accuses Apple of “patent infringement, unfair trade practices, monopolization, and tortuous interference for allegedly treading on its January 2002 patent.”  That patent is titled “Electronic device, preferably an electronic book.”

Monec’s claims center around Apple’s reading applications for the iPhone, which make the phone an eBook reader.  Supposedly, this violates Monec’s patent filed for a lightweight electronic device with a touchscreen, that can display a page of a book at normal size.

Some have speculated that this lawsuit may have been started by Amazon’s Kindle for iPhone e-book reader software that is now in Apple’s App Store.  However, it seems as if Monec’s claims may be a bit too general for this lawsuit to ruled in the plantiff’s favor.

Shock Doctor Settles Mouth Guard Dispute

Last year, Shock Doctor Inc. sued XO Athletic Co. over a protective mouth guard.  Shock Doctor maintained that XO Athletic had infringed on a patent relating to their Gel Max Mouthguard, and Shock Doctor even went so far as to challenge a redesign of XO Athletics’ mouth guard as well.  However, as reported by Minneapolis/St. Paul Business Journal, the two have come to terms on an agreement.

Under the agreement, XO Athletic decided to comply with a permanent injunction against their product, preventing them from infringing on the mouth guard.  The injunction was originally ordered by a district court in Minnesota and was only preliminary.  The injunction was also upheld after an appeal, but has now become permanent with XO Athletic’s consent.

Steven Coopersmith, senior vice president of marketing for Shock Doctor, said the following:

The Gel Max Mouthguard is one of our flagship products and reflects our commitment to creating superior products that protect all athletes.  Shock Doctor invests heavily in research and collaboration with medical professionals to develop technologically advanced gear, and this result supports our ability to continue to do so.

TAG to Close After Lawsuit Defeat

Looking for evidence of how infringement lawsuits can cripple a company?  Well, look no further than TAG Co., as it recently lost a suit against Sensormatic Electronics.

According to the Miami Herald, TAG is shutting down after it was found that the company had stolen Sensormatic’s trade secrets, while also infringing two Sensormatic patents.  TAG had started manufacturing its own antitheft labels, and introduced their line of disposable tag in 2006.  But after only three months, Sensormatic filed a lawsuit against TAG.

The court’s decision found that TAG had obtained Sensormatic specifications to make its antitheft labels.  Also, the court found that a TAG consultant copied 24,000 pages of documents when he left Sensormatic.  Not helping matters was the fact that Mark Krom, the president of TAG, as well as other company managers, are former Sensormatic employees.

Sensormatic was awarded $200,000 in damages, as well as an injunction against TAG from selling “any products produced with information taken from Sensormatic.” 

After the legal defeat, TAG’s owner, Adurion Global Opportunities Fund, decided to pull the plug on the company.  It is expected that at least 60 people who worked at TAG will lose their jobs.

TomTom Countersues Microsoft

Last month, Microsoft sued TomTom for violating eight of its patents.  However, the GPS maker recently fought back by issuing its own countersuit against Microsoft, reports Electronista.  The suit accuses Microsoft of infringing on four patents, while also stating that Microsoft’s use of the technology “has been and continues to be willful and without license from TomTom.”

This case has received interest from the open-source community, as Microsoft’s original lawsuit related to patents involving the Linux operating system.  But when Microsoft was asked if open-source software was a target of their lawsuit, Horacio Gutierrez of Microsoft said the following:

Microsoft respects and appreciates the important role that open-source software plays in our industry and we respect and appreciate the passion and the great contribution that open-source developers make in our industry.

One GPS maker that does hold licenses from Microsoft for similar technologies is Garmin, TomTom’s top competitor.  Microsoft claims it is only trying to maintain its previous position of licensing the technology to TomTom.  “As has bee then case for more than a year, we remain committed to a licensing solution, although we will continue to press ahead with the complaints.”

Microsoft, Lexmark Ink Licensing Deal

Yesterday, Microsoft and Lexmark announced that they have entered into a patent cross-licensing agreement.  Financial terms of the agreement were not disclosed, but the deal will allow “greater mutual access” to the patent portfolios of both companies.

According to CNET News, the deal will license patents for Lexmark’s printers and multifunction devices to Microsoft.  In return, Lexmark will have access to a wide range of Microsoft’s software.

This deal is one of more than 500 cross-licensing deals that Microsoft already has in place.  Many of those agreements can be attributed to Microsoft’s IP licensing program, which was put in place in 2003.

Said Marty Canning, Lexmark’s printing solutions and services division president, “We believe this agreement will improve the productivity of both our companies and result in enhanced product offerings and increased satisfaction for all our customers.”

Discovery Sues Amazon over Kindle

Although Amazon introduced the Kindle e-book reader in November 2007, it appears as if a similar patent was granted that same month to Discovery Communications.  That company, better known for its ownership of the Discovery Channel, filed a patent in 1999, with  most of the major features now incorporated in the Kindle.  As reported by Ars Technica, Discovery has now filed a suit against Amazon for patent infringement.

Discovery’s patent is called “Electronic book security and copyright protection system,” and the majority of the claims involve encrypting and delivering e-book contents.  But the patent contains over 170 clauses, most of them citing variations in which the encryption takes place at different points in the distribution.  The patent also explains that a patented book could be distributed over the Internet and on “a wireless telephone network.”  If that weren’t troubling enough for Amazon, the patent also covers most of Kindle’s content management system.

Discovery is not seeking an injunction with their lawsuit, but they are seeking “adequate [damages] to compensate Discovery for Amazon’s infringement.”  The suit also asks the court to impose a royalty agreement.

It is now for the court to decide if Amazon really did infringe on Discovery’s patents, or if these similarities are not guilty of infringement.  But Discovery has nine patents covering e-books in their portfolio, and it may be tough for Amazon to evade all of them.

« Previous Page — Next Page »