Posts Tagged: "Apple"

Judge Conley ordered Apple to pay $506 million in damages to WARF for infringing on patents covering computer processing technologies. WARF’s original complaint, filed in January 2014, involved the assertion of a single patent: U.S. Patent No. 5781752, titled Table Based Data Speculation Circuit for Parallel Processing Computer and issued in July 1998… According to WARF’s original complaint, the development of the technology protected by the ‘752 patent is recognized as a major milestone in the field of computer microprocessor architecture and design. It lead to the election of Dr. Gurindar Sohi, the leader of the lab developing the technology, into the National Academy of Engineering in 2009.

Intel’s claims are interesting, to say the least. If you actually look at the complaint filed by Qualcomm there is no admission, as Intel would have you believe, that infringing products would still be allowed entry into the U.S. just with a Qualcomm processor modem. Qualcomm is very upfront about what they are requesting, however. They are requesting the exclusion of products because those products do not incorporate a Qualcomm processor modem, but that is because Qualcomm owns the patents the cover that component so without using a Qualcomm processor modem there is patent infringement.

The Qualcomm complaint alleges Section 337 violations of patent infringement caused by the importation and sale of certain mobile electronic devices and radio frequency and processing components facilitated by Cupertino, CA-based consumer mobile electronics giant Apple, Inc… “Qualcomm’s inventions are at the heart of every iPhone and extend well beyond modem technologies or cellular standards,” Dan Rosenberg, executive VP and general counsel at Qualcomm, is quoted as saying. “The patents we are asserting represent six important technologies, out of a portfolio of thousands, and each is vital to iPhone functions.”

So obviously the patent claims VirnetX has used to pursue infringers such as Apple and Microsoft are not the weak patents that opponents of the patent system claim are the scourge of the system. Well — not so fast! Just because an Article III federal district court confirms the validity of a patent doesn’t mean anything anymore. Indeed, federal courts have become subordinate to the PTAB, which is as ridiculous as it sounds but sadly true. A patent is not valid until an Article I executive tribunal says so, and absolutely no deference is paid to Article III judges of the United States federal courts.

A $1 trillion a year industry not wanting to pay innovators less than a 1% royalty on the innovations they appropriate (i.e., steal) for their own profits seems like a terrible price to pay given the national security and economic consequences of forfeiting our world leadership to the Europeans and Chinese… Google and Uber are locked in a patent battle over self-driving automobiles, so does that make Google or Uber a patent troll? What about General Electric, Apple, Samsung, Microsoft, Cisco, Oracle, Whirlpool, Kraft Foods, Caterpillar, Seiko Epson, Amgen, Bayer, Genzyme, Sanofi-Aventis, and Honeywell, to name just a few?

When just looking at the subset of final written decisions resulting from Apple petitions where APJ Clements was on the panel, 24 final written decisions deem all claims invalid while only one decision led to mixed claim findings. There are no cases where a panel including APJ Clements issued a final written decision in review proceedings petitioned by Apple where all claims have been upheld.

These companies are examples of potential victims of Apple’s singular focus on profit. However, what’s at stake is much larger than Apple’s bottom line. While Apple is breaking market cap records, it is systematically devaluing innovation and technology. If these bullying tactics are not kept in check, Apple’s own partners will lack the resources needed to invest in new developments and better ideas. Further, the precedent will be established that the largest technology company in the world can take and use intellectual property owned by others, whether legally allowed or not, ultimately stifling innovation and creativity.

The website link provided by the USPTO contains no rules of judicial conduct or codes of judicial conduct, which means that the USPTO has indirectly confirmed that there are no rules or codes of judicial conduct that apply to Administrative Patent Judges (APJs) of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). To call this revelation by the USPTO shocking is an understatement. 37 CFR 11.803 clearly contemplates the existence of rules of judicial conduct applicable to APJs, which obviously do not exist. The lack of any judicial rules of conduct or ethical rules specifically tailored for judges on the PTAB is highly informative, and explains why it was possible for at least two PTAB judges to decide post grant challenges filed by former patent defense clients.

If an APJ making decisions in a case within 18 months of having represented a former client complies with whatever USPTO conflict rules or guidelines apply to PTAB judges, the USPTO conflict rules or guidelines are too lenient and must be changed. PTAB just should not be deciding cases involving post grant petitions filed by former defense clients, and under no circumstances is 18 months long enough to alleviate any concerns of bias or take away the appearance of impropriety… If identification of the real party-in-interest is so important perhaps that transparency should be a two-way street. Perhaps there should be a public Code of Conduct for PTAB judges, and perhaps the USPTO should give stakeholders the opportunity to be heard on whether 2 years is an appropriate length of time to wash away a conflict of interest, or the appearance of impropriety that exists when deciding cases dealing with former clients. My guess is most patent owners would be adamantly opposed to PTAB judges deciding petitions challenging patents brought by their former clients.

The lead APJ serving on the panel of multiple CBM reviews petitioned by Apple, who also wrote the final written decision on at least one CBM review petitioned by Apple and invalidated claims of the ‘772 patent, was Administrative Patent Judge Matt Clements. According to Clements’ LinkedIn profile, he has served as an administrative patent judge at PTAB since March 2013; up until that time he served as a patent attorney at international law firm Ropes & Gray going as far back to September 2006. While at Ropes & Gray, Clements was part of a legal team that represented Apple in patent infringement cases. According to legal party data made available by Law360, Clements served as counsel for Apple up to December 2012 and served on a team with fellow Ropes & Gray lawyer James Batchelder as well as Eric Albritton of the Albritton Law Firm. Both Batchelder and Albritton were counsel of record representing Apple in the Smartflash infringement case where the ‘772 patent was asserted against Apple. Batchelder and Clements both worked at Ropes & Gray’s East Palo Alto offices, where Batchelder served as managing partner, so there’s a distinct likelihood that Clements reported directly to Batchelder in his work with Ropes & Gray. The November 2014 petition by Apple for CBM review of the ‘772 patent was also filed by counsel from Ropes & Gray including Ching-Lee Fukuda, another one of the lawyers representing Apple in the Smartflash action. These types of relationships would have led to the recusal of a federal judge on a manner and yet APJs at the PTAB are not subject to rules that are supposed to prevent this kind of conflict of interest that comes with deciding a matter that includes a former employer.

Core Wireless sued Apple for infringing its patent directed to a cellular network system including a mobile station providing for improved transmission of data packets. The jury found that Apple did not infringe Core Wireless’ patent. At issue on appeal is whether the district court misapplied the magistrate judge’s pretrial claim construction and whether the claim construction adopted by the district court when ruling on Core Wireless’ JMOL was erroneous… Ultimately, the Court concluded that the district court correctly denied Core Wireless’s motion for judgment as a matter of law and properly upheld the jury’s verdict of noninfringement.

Qualcomm accused Apple of engaging in tortious interference relating to Qualcomm’s licensing activities with Apple’s contract manufacturers. Specifically, Qualcomm asserts that Apple pressured contract manufacturers to withhold licensing payments they would normally have made to Qualcomm. Apple has allegedly also pressured contract manufacturers to refuse to comply with Qualcomm auditing procedures, leading to Qualcomm’s inability to verify the accuracy of royalty reports… Qualcomm also notes that its licensing activities with Apple’s contract manufacturers go back years before Apple sold its first cell phone in 2007, as early as February 2000 in the case of Taiwanese firm Compal Electronics. Qualcomm asserts that its licensing agreements with the contract manufacturers were consistent with policies set out by the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI).

On Monday, April 3rd, multiple news outlets were reporting that American consumer gadget developer Apple Inc. (NASDAQ:AAPL) had informed British semiconductor manufacturer Imagination Technologies (LON:IMG) that it would no longer be the designer of graphics processing units (GPUs) for Apple portable electronic devices. Shares of Imagination Technologies plunged 70 percent on the news and further comments from executives indicate that a patent battle might be brewing over Apple’s business decision.

We’re three months into 2017 and already the early returns are showing that this year should be a banner one for intelligent voice assistant technologies. The 2017 Voice Report from VoiceLabs, a voice assistant app development firm, forecasts a total of 24.5 voice-first devices sold by the end of the year, increasing the overall footprint for such devices to 33 million in circulation. The report also indicates that specialization between voice assistants will become much more pronounced this year as the largest players in the field continue to develop their voice assistant technologies in ways that benefit their core business.

Efficient infringement causes distress and agony for innovators struggling to survive,, and widespread efficient infringement absolutely stifles innovation… Innovators today patent their technologies in the hopes of licensing to a tech company but recent legislation from Congress, most notably in the form of the America Invents Act of 2011 (AIA), has increased the difficulties of asserting patent rights. In this environment, it becomes economically viable for a large company to simply copy what it can from available technologies it hasn’t developed instead of actually licensing that technology.