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.

Microsoft Exec to Release Patent Troll Study

According to Xchange, a former Microsoft executive has underwritten a study aimed at patent trolls.  The study will be aimed at determining who is to blame for the large amount of patent suits -filed by non-practicing entities – that have hit the U.S. courts in the last decade.

If the study is effective, it will be interesting to see where the claims made by patent trolls originated.  While it may be impossible to figure out when patent trolls first appeared (since some cases probably didn’t even make it to trial), it may shed some light on trends within the IP community.

However, one comical aspect to the study is that the executive’s former company, Microsoft, makes its money by collecting patents.  To Microsoft’s credit, the company is far from a non-practicing entity.

On the Horizon: Congress to Take up Patent Reform

It has been reported that the U.S. Congress will take up patent reform in the near future, despite an ambitious patent reform failing in the Senate last year.  A spokesman for Senator Patrick Leahy confirmed the Senator’s plans to bring up patent reform in the current session.  The statement was echoed by Taraneh Maghame, chief patent counsel for Tessera Inc, “I believe we’ll see something out of Leahy’s office shortly after the inauguration because he wants to move things along.”

As reported on the EETimes, many large technology companies are seeking patent reform, given the rise of companies asserting general, questionable patents against them.  According to RPX Corp., which is a patent licensing service, as many as 16% of patent suits in 2008 were filed by non-practicing entities, otherwise known as “patent trolls.”  At the same time, smaller tech firms claim that patent reform could actually weaken the patent system.

Statistically speaking, roughly 3,000 patent infringement suits are filed every year in the U.S., but that figure has remained constant during the past decade.  Of those lawsuits, only 10% actually go to trial, and as few as 50 patents a year are invalidated by court action.

Yet, the big debate is whether Congress should pass patent reform, or if it is an issue that should be left for the courts.  Chief Judge Paul R. Michel recently suggested in a FTC hearing that the courts should handle patent reform.  He also challenged that the rising amount of patent lawsuits are impeding innovation. 

Of course, others state that the courts are only part of the problem.  An unfortunate characteristic of issues such as patent reform, is that there really is no right or clear-cut answer to the problem.  Perhaps the best course of action, as suggested by some, is to take a “wait and see” approach.

“We need to let the dust settle on the effectiveness of the recent cases because they went a long way to address the needs people had raised,” said Maghame of Tessera.  “Putting a whole layer of patent reform on top of that could have ramifications for the economy.”

Over 20 Companies Sued over OS Patent

Microsoft, Symantec, and 20 other companies have been named in a patent infringement lawsuit by a small Texas firm.  Information Protection and Authentication of Texas (IPAT) was granted two patents in the mid-90’s over systems for governing application and data permissions, and ensuring application integrity.  IPAT is looking for an injunction against the named companies as well as damages, reports Ars Technica.

The patent in question was granted in May 1995, and was a continuation of a previous patent filed in May 1994.  The former patent is titled “Computer system security method and apparatus having program authorization information data structures,” and it describes a system of authorization and permissions when executing applications and processing user data.  As the patent describes:

[A system monitor] limits the ability of a program about to be executed to the use of predefined resources.  The system monitor builds a data structure including a set of authorities defining that which a program is permitted to do and/or that which the program is precluded from doing.

IPAT purchased these patents from their listed inventor, Addison M. Fischer.  The complaint was originally filed on December 30, 2008, and a response from the defendants is still forthcoming.