World of Apple

Apple today revealed that it has filed a lawsuit against HTC for infringing 20 of Apple’s iPhone patents relating to “user interface, underlying architecture and hardware.” The lawsuit was filed with both the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) and in U.S. District Court in Delaware.

“We can sit by and watch competitors steal our patented inventions, or we can do something about it. We’ve decided to do something about it,” said Steve Jobs, Apple’s CEO. “We think competition is healthy, but competitors should create their own original technology, not steal ours.”

Engadget offers a brief breakdown of the patents Apple claims HTC has infringed.

• The ‘331 Patent, entitled “Time-Based, Non-Constant Translation Of User Interface Objects Between States,” was duly and legally issued on April 22, 2008 by the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
• The ‘949 Patent, entitled “Touch Screen Device, Method, And Graphical User Interface For Determining Commands By Applying Heuristics,” was duly and legally issued on January 20, 2009 by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. A copy of the ‘949 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
• The ‘849 Patent, entitled “Unlocking A Device By Performing Gestures On An Unlock Image,” was duly and legally issued on February 2, 2010 by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. A copy of the ‘849 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit C.
• The ‘381 Patent, entitled “List Scrolling And Document Translation, Scaling, And Rotation On A Touch-Screen Display,” was duly and legally issued on December 23, 2008 by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. A copy of the ‘381 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit D.
• The ‘726 Patent, entitled “System And Method For Managing Power Conditions Within A Digital Camera Device,” was duly and legally issued on July 6, 1999 by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. A copy of the ‘726 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit E.
• The ‘076 Patent, entitled “Automated Response To And Sensing Of User Activity In Portable Devices,” was duly and legally issued on December 15, 2009 by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. A copy of the ‘076 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit F.
• The ‘105 Patent, entitled “GMSK Signal Processors For Improved Communications Capacity And Quality,” was duly and legally issued on December 8, 1998 by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. A copy of the ‘105 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit G.
• The ‘453 Patent, entitled “Conserving Power By Reducing Voltage Supplied To An Instruction-Processing Portion Of A Processor,” was duly and legally issued on June 3, 2008 by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. A copy of the ‘453 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit H.
• The ‘599 Patent, entitled “Object-Oriented Graphic System,” was duly and legally issued on October 3, 1995 by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. A copy of the ‘599 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit I.
• The ‘354 Patent, entitled “Object-Oriented Event Notification System With Listener Registration Of Both Interests And Methods,” was duly and legally issued on July 23, 2002 by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. A copy of the ‘354 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit J.

Complete USITC and Deleware Court filings below.

Delaware Filing

USITC Filing

Apple HQ, 1 Infinite Loop | Photo by Wysz - Flickr

Yesterday afternoon Apple held its annual shareholder meeting at its Cupertino headquarters. This year discussions focused primarily on the company’s financial situation and environmental issues.

At the meeting the shareholders re-elected Jobs and the Apple board of directors. The topic of previous board member Eric Schimdt came up when one shareholder asked if the Google CEO had conducted properly while serving on Apple’s board. Jobs said that “Eric Schmidt conducted himself appropriately and recused himself on matters that might involve conflict”.

Also approved was Ernst and Young as Apple’s public accounting firm for the year 2010.

During the meeting two shareholder proposals were voted down, in-line with board recommendations. The first proposal read as follows, “Shareholders request that the Board of Directors prepare a sustainability report describing corporate strategies regarding climate change, specifically to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and address other environmental and social impacts such as toxics, recycling and employee and product safety.”

The board rebutted with, Apple “is already substantially fulfilling—and in many respects exceeding—the request for information in Proposal No. 6″.

On the second opposed and denied proposal was for Apple to amend the bylaws to establish a sustainability committee “to ensure our corporation’s sustained viability”…”responding to changing conditions and knowledge of the natural environment, including but not limited to, natural resource limitations, energy use, waste disposal, and climate change.”

The board opposed the proposal with the following, “[Apple] takes environmental sustainability very seriously, and the Company has made significant progress in reducing the environmental impact of the Company’s operations and products, as described in the Company’s statement in opposition to Proposal No. 6, above. However, the Board does not believe a Board committee dedicated to this issue is necessary”.

After all the proposals were out of the way Steve Jobs, Tim Cook and Peter Oppenheimer fielded some questions.

One shareholder asked if Jobs has returned to Apple in a limited capacity, the CEO simply replied with “No” adding that while he was out, “Tim took the helm and Apple didn’t miss a beat.”

Other areas of interest mention include Jobs’ view on Apple’s financial situation. A present shareholder asked if Apple would use it’s current $40 billion cash and short-term investments to pay dividends, Jobs refuted saying that Apple is holding cash to take “big, bold” risks.

Jobs said that China is a market with lots of promise and said that Apple would open 25 retail stores in the near future.

Related: Apple’s 2010 Proxy statement.

Following a complaint filed by Kodak last month against Apple and Research in Motion (RIM) the U.S. International Trade Commission has announced that it will investigate the iPhone and Blackberry makers.

The investigation is based on a complaint filed by Eastman Kodak Company of Rochester, NY, on January 14, 2010. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 in the importation into the United States and sale of certain mobile telephones and wireless communication devices featuring digital cameras and components thereof that infringe a patent asserted by Kodak. The complainant requests that the USITC issue an exclusion order and cease and desist orders.

Kodak alleges that the iPhone and Blackberry use technologies that infringe patents and has asked the ITC to ban the imports of units in the United State.

The USITC will offer a “final determination in the investigation at the earliest practicable time.”

iPhone 3GS | Image courtesy of Apple

Apple has been officially awarded the “IPHONE” trademark in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office under number 3,746,840 covering International Classes 9, 28 and 38.

Of interest from the award which covers both the name and logo is that the trademark includes classes 9, 28 and 38. The most interesting of the three being class 28 which covers “Handheld unit for playing electronic games.”

View the full patent certificate here, awarded on February 9, 2010.

The appellate case is moving along with both parties having filed their mandatory Mediation Questionnaires. Other than both agreeing that mediation would be futile, the filings are pretty vanilla with the exception of the following unintentional humour (from Psystar’s filing):

(more…)

As its attorney had previously indicated, Psystar is appealing Judge Alsup’s Order effectively ceasing all of their operations. What is a bit surprising is that Psystar has also filed multiple Orders regarding the sealing of confidential documents. A copy of the docket entries may be found here, and the relevant portion of the filings detailing each Order appealed can be found here.

Although Psystar could raise the issue of Rebel EFI with Judge Alsup, it is unlikely that they will proceed any further until the Appeal is heard by the Ninth Circuit. Nothing new has transpired in the Florida case.

I wonder who paid the hefty filing fee of $455.00.

In addition to her position as Assistant Editor at World of Apple, dizzle runs idrankthekoolaid, an Apple fangrl satire blog, and is an Administrator and Hostess at MyAppleSpace and their vidcast MASTv.

In the ongoing saga between Apple and Nokia it was reported over the weekend that Apple has struck back at Nokia filing its own complaint with the International Trade Commission (ITC).

The move from Apple to ban the imports of Nokia mobile phones into the United States is identical to that of Nokia’s who last month filed with the ITC to ban the import of “virtually all” Apple products.

In a comment to Bloomberg Nokia spokesman Mark Durrant said that the company “will study the complaint when it is received and continue to defend itself vigorously.

“However this does not alter the fact that Apple has failed to agree appropriate terms for using Nokia technology and has been seeking a free ride on Nokia’s innovation since it shipped the first iPhone in 2007.”

The battle between Apple and Nokia started in October last year when Nokia alleged that the Apple iPhone infringed 10 of its patents. Apple countered this claim by filing a lawsuit against Nokia claiming that the company had infringed 13 of Apple’s patents.

Kodak has filed a complaint with the US Internal Trade Commission (ITC) alleging that both the iPhone and Blackberry use technology to preview images that infringes Kodak patents.

In addition Kodak has filed two sperate cases against Apple saying that the iPhone infringes patents related to “digital cameras and certain computer processes.”

“Kodak has a long history of digital imaging innovation and we have invested hundreds of millions of dollars creating our industry-leading patent portfolio,” said Laura G. Quatela, Chief Intellectual Property Officer, and Vice President, Eastman Kodak Company. “In the case of Apple and RIM, we’ve had discussions for years with both companies in an attempt to resolve this issue amicably, and we have not been able to reach a satisfactory agreement. In light of that, we are taking this action to ensure that we protect the interests of our shareholders and the existing licensees of our technology.

“Our primary interest is not to disrupt the availability of any product but to obtain fair compensation for the use of our technology,” Quatela said. “There’s a basic issue of fairness that needs to be addressed. Those devices use Kodak technology, and we are merely seeking compensation for the use of our technology in their products.”

Kodak’s complaint to the ITC against Apple and RIM is a limited exclusion order preventing the importation of infringing devices, including certain mobile telephones and wireless communication devices featuring digital cameras.

“We remain open to negotiating a fair and amicable agreement with both Apple and RIM, which has always been our preference and our practice with other licensees,” Quatela said. “We seek to avoid litigation in our licensing programs whenever possible. But when the infringement is persistent, we will act to defend the interests of our shareholders and licensees, and to promote the fair compensation that is the bedrock of innovation.”

On December 31, 2009, Psystar filed a Report of Compliance with Injunction (you can view the filing here). There are a few points of interest.

In paragraph 4, Pedraza makes a statement that seems to be contradictory to Psystar’s stated position in the Miami Court; that is, the California case does not involve Rebel EFI. How so? Pedraza states that Psystar has ceased selling Rebel EFI in order to comply with the California Injunction, but why do so if that Injunction didn’t apply to that product.

(more…)

Nokia has announced that it has filed a complaint with the “United States International Trade Commission (ITC) alleging that Apple infringes Nokia patents in virtually all of its mobile phones, portable music players, and computers.”

In addition to Nokia’s previous infringement complaint, Nokia is now complaining that seven patents are being infringed by Apple “to create key features in its products in the area of user interface, as well as camera, antenna and power management technologies.”

“Nokia has been the leading developer of many key technologies in small electronic devices” said Paul Melin, General Manager, Patent Licensing at Nokia. “This action is about protecting the results of such pioneering development. While our litigation in Delaware is about Apple’s attempt to free-ride on the back of Nokia investment in wireless standards, the ITC case filed today is about Apple’s practice of building its business on Nokia’s proprietary innovation.”

Following Nokia’s original patent case, Apple countersued in early December after previously stating that it would vigorously defend itself.