Typo, the Ryan Seacrest-backed company selling an iPhone case with an integrated hardware keyboard, has been ordered to pay BlackBerry around $860,600 in the ongoing case between the two companies, Reuters reports.
If you’re unfamiliar, BlackBerry didn’t particularly like the Typo keyboard’s resemblance to its own iconic, albeit obsolete, keyboard included on its dwindling smartphone lineup and covered by its patents. After the court handed down an injunction following an original suit filed in January of 2014, a US District Judge in San Francisco ruled this week that Typo will have to pay the £567,303, or approximately $860,600, fine for violating the injunction and continuing to sell the product.
Despite little interest from anyone and generally poor reviews, Typo plans to keep making its keyboard cases and noted to Reuters that the fines do not relate to its latest generation of Typo 2 products unveiled at CES last month.
Future patent battles between Apple and Samsung could take an entertaining turn as Apple has been granted a patent on radial menus for touchscreen devices – using an illustration that bears a notable resemblance to the Air Command menu used by Samsung on the Galaxy Note 3.
Lest anyone accuse Apple of copying Samsung, Apple first patented the menu approach back in 2012 – a year before Samsung adopted it. The reason for the second patent granted today is that Apple seemingly had in mind OS X rather than iOS when it first came up with the idea, illustrating it in a desktop environment.
The second patent specifically references using the menu based on “input from a touchscreen.”
As ever, the fact that Apple has patented something provides no evidence at all that it will ever see the light of day in an Apple product – OS X or iOS. Apple plays around with all kinds of ideas and patents thousands of them, only a tiny minority of which are ever used.
With Apple possessing a patent for a particular menu approach used by Samsung, but patenting touchscreen application of the approach after Samsung launched it in a tablet, the legal arguments could get interesting should the matter ever end up in court …
Samsung, together with its lawyers, will have to fork out a little more cash following its loss in its second patent battle with Apple. A court has fined lawyers Quinn Emanuel and Samsung a total of $2M for misusing confidential details of a patent deal struck between Apple and Nokia.
The documents were supplied by Apple to Samsung’s lawyers purely so that it could see that Apple was telling the truth about its patent deals with other companies. The documents were marked “for attorney’s eyes only” and were not to be revealed to Samsung executives … Expand Expanding Close
I know, your eyes are probably glazing over by now at yet another Apple v. Samsung patent story. It seems scarcely a week goes by without one of the two companies winning a point, losing a point, filing an appeal, winning an appeal, losing an appeal or applying for some kind of court order. And if you were losing count, the latest news reported by FOSS Patents that a California court has rejected Apple’s application for an injunction against Samsung still relates to the original patent battle between the two companies which began back in 2011.
Apple was originally awarded almost a billion dollars in damages for patent infringements by Samsung. Apple had argued that monetary damages were insufficient, and that the court should also have ordered that the infringing products be withdrawn from sale … Expand Expanding Close
As if we needed someone to tell us that the ongoing patent lawsuits between Apple and Motorola in Germany were getting a little out of control… Today the European Commission has finally stepped up calling Motorola’s enforcement of an injunction against Apple with mobile standard essential patents “abuse of a dominant position prohibited by EU antitrust rules.” The EU Commission, however, does note that the statement of objections sent to Motorola does not reflect the final outcome of its investigation into its use of standard essential patents (SEPs):
The Motorola Mobility SEPs in question relate to the European Telecommunications Standardisation Institute’s (ETSI) GPRS standard, part of the GSM standard, which is a key industry standard for mobile and wireless communications. When this standard was adopted in Europe, Motorola Mobility gave a commitment that it would license the patents which it had declared essential to the standard on FRAND terms. Nevertheless, Motorola Mobility sought an injunction against Apple in Germany on the basis of a GPRS SEP and, after the injunction was granted, went on to enforce it, even when Apple had declared that it would be willing to be bound by a determination of the FRAND royalties by the German court.
The EU Commission essentially states that Apple should be able to license the technology under fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms decided by a third-party, and that Motorola’s approach with its latest injunction could “distort licensing negotiations and impose unjustified licensing terms.” Back in February of 2012, Apple was for a short while forced to remove all 3G devices from its online store in Germany following the injunction, and at the time Apple noted that “Motorola repeatedly refuses to license this patent to Apple on reasonable terms, despite having declared it an industry standard patent seven years ago.” Expand Expanding Close
According to a report from Reuters, Nokia has this week become the first company to submit an amicus brief in support of Apple’s attempt to secure injunctions on several Samsung products. While the full contents of the brief have not yet been revealed, Reuters reports Nokia argued its position in a summary of the brief that was filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington on Monday.
In an accompanying summary, however, Nokia argued that a trial court judge got it wrong when she denied Apple’s request for a permanent injunction.
In the filing on Monday, Nokia attorney Keith Broyles from Alston & Bird argued that U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh in San Jose, California, erred by ruling that Apple must establish a “causal nexus” between its patented feature and the demand for its phones in order to secure a permanent injunction.
Nokia argued that the rule “could cause wide-ranging damage to the United States patent protection landscape.”
Companies and advocacy groups will still be able to submit briefs on behalf of Samsung after the company’s written arguments in the coming weeks. Nokia said its decision to submit the brief is to “advocate for patent rights as a means of fostering innovation.” Expand Expanding Close
U.S. Judge Lucy Koh granted Apple’s request for a preliminary injunction against Samsung’s Galaxy Nexus smartphone in June, and the decision resulted in the temporary removal of the device from Google Play pending a software fix with Android 4.1. Today, Reuters reported that Apple’s U.S. injunction on the Galaxy Nexus has been reversed. TheNextWeb got its hands on the official order:
Samsung argued, somewhat humiliatingly, that the sales of the Galaxy Nexus were so poor that they didn’t pose a threat to Apple’s iPhone and that the unified search feature was not essential to the success of its device. The appeals court apparently agrees, as it states in its official order:
…it may very well be that the accused product would sell almost as well without incorporating the patented feature. And in that case, even if the competitive injury that results from selling the accused device is substantial, the harm that flows from the alleged infringement (the only harm that should count) is not.
According to Reuters, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled the court “abused its discretion in entering an injunction” and will send the case back to the California court for consideration. Expand Expanding Close
Aereo—the service that streams over-the-air local TV to any Mac, iOS device, or PC running Safari for $12 per month—just got a second chance at survival. According to The New York Times, a U.S. federal judge on Wednesday rejected a temporary injunction spurred by television broadcasters, saying a ruling for the broadcasters would have shut down Aereo.
Reuters reported that Walt Disney Co., Comcast Corp., News Corp., Univision Communications Inc., and the Public Broadcasting Service tried to stop Aereo with the injunction, claiming they would “lose their right to retransmission fees from cable and other companies that rebroadcast their programming, and also lose critical advertising revenue”:
U.S. District Judge Alison Nathan said on Wednesday that while the broadcasters demonstrated they faced irreparable financial damage if were the venture were allowed to continue, Aereo also showed it would face severe harm if the requested preliminary injunction were granted.
‘First and foremost, the evidence establishes that an injunction may quickly mean the end of Aereo as a business,’ the Manhattan judge wrote in a 52-page opinion.
The New York Times quoted Aereo’s Barry Diller, who noted a trial still lies ahead for his company, but he is now “far happier to begin this process with the judge’s ruling.” One of the plaintiffs, CBS, told the publication it would continue to seek damages and a permanent injunction: “This is only a ruling on a preliminary injunction. This case is not over by a long shot.”
9to5Mac reviewed Aereo in March and found its broadcast TV-like experience encouraging and well worth a test-drive:
Overall, Aereo’s HTML5 user-interface is the most impressive on the Mac platform. Its ease of browsing, watching, and recording local TV through Safari is a unique take during an age that offers countless ways of viewing cable without an actual television. The main takeaway with Aereo is that it works best on the Macand the iPad, video quality is identical to what one would see on a HDTV, and the DVR function is extremely handy.
[…] For many people, its DVR functionality alone is worth the $12 monthly fee. For others, the admission price might be too hefty when compared to cheaper services that also offer cable programming and better streaming.
There were reports earlier this week that District Judge Lucy Koh issued a preliminary injunction on the Galaxy Tab 10.1 in the United States related to the ongoing cases between Apple and Samsung. At the time, reports claimed the ruling would kick in once Apple posted a $2.6 million bond. Today, FossPatents reported that Apple has since done so, allowing the preliminary injunction to formally take effect:
Apple didn’t hesitate to post its $2.6 million bond to protect Samsung against the possibility of a successful appeal, in which case the preliminary injunction would be found to have been improperly granted… the injunction has taken effect and Samsung must abide by it. Otherwise Apple could ask the court to sanction Samsung for contempt.
With Apple pulling $39.2 billion in revenue last quarter, we know it takes only a matter of minutes to make that $2.6 million, which is meant to protect Samsung from damages in case the injunction is found to be wrongly issued. On Tuesday, Judge Koh made a statement following her ruling that Samsung “does not have a right to compete unfairly, by flooding the market with infringing products.” FossPatents continued by giving its outlook for the trial set to take place this summer: Expand Expanding Close
Update: A report fromBloomberg Businessweek confirmed with some clarification. As we reported in April, the ITC will have to review Judge Pender’s previous ruling that Apple infringed on one Motorola patent related to industry standard 3G and wireless technologies. The date for that hearing is now scheduled for August 24 and could result on a block of iOS devices from Asia to the United States:
The U.S. International Trade Commission said it will review ITC Judge Thomas Pender’s findings that Apple was violating one of four Motorola Mobility patents. The commission is scheduled to issue a final decision on Aug. 24, and has the power to block devices made in Asia from entering the U.S.
According to several tweets from financial analyst @zerohedge, Google is apparently attempting to block shipments of the iPhone and iPad in the U.S. related to 3G patents. We do not have any more information at the moment, but we will keep you updated as the story unfolds…
When we checked in last Friday on the ongoing Apple vs. Samsung cases in the United States, Apple’s lawyers were threatening Samsung with a temporary restraining order on the Galaxy S III to stop sales of the device before its June 21 release date. Apple was hoping Judge Lucy Koh would add the Galaxy S III to existing preliminary injunction requests that Apple previously made on other Galaxy products. However, according to a report from Reuters, Judge Koh ruled this week that Apple’s requests would “overload her calendar” given a July 30 trial date in the previous Galaxy cases is already set.
Apple can still request a ban on the Galaxy S III with a separate hearing date, but it likely will not be able to do so in enough time to block the device from launching later this month:
U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh in San Jose, California, effectively dashed Apple’s hopes of stopping the launch of Samsung Electronics Co Ltd’s new Galaxy S III smartphone, which also runs on Android. Koh had said Apple’s push to get a court order blocking the June 21 launch would overload her calendar… Koh last week said Apple could ask for a temporary restraining order against the Galaxy S III phone, but that would likely delay the trial over a Galaxy tablet and other smartphones. In her order on Monday, the judge said Apple would have to request a new hearing date if it wanted to stop sales of the Galaxy S III phone. That likely would not take place before the phone’s scheduled launch. Apple has not said what its next move will be.
Last time we checked in on the ongoing U.S. patent-related court cases between Apple and Samsung, Apple’s lawyers were requesting to add the Galaxy S III to its previous motion for a preliminary injunction against the Galaxy Nexus line of products from February.
Apple was hoping the courts would agree to withhold sales of the S III until a ruling on the preliminary injunction was made. Samsung recommended the judge dismiss Apple’s request and file a new motion, but Apple attorney Josh Krevitt threatened Samsung at a hearing on Thursday that Apple could file a temporary restraining order as early as today to stop sales of the S III before it launches June 21. Bloomberg reported:
Josh Krevitt, a lawyer for Cupertino, California-based Apple, told Koh he was considering filing a request for a temporary restraining order in the interest of blocking sales of the Galaxy S III before its scheduled release in the U.S. this month… Krevitt said a court order temporarily barring Galaxy S III sales in the U.S. will create “a mechanism to allow the court to decide this issue before the launch.”
First Samsung will have to prove in court today that the Galaxy S III includes a “different combination of features” from the Nexus in order to prevent Apple from adding the device to the previously requested preliminary injunction. According to Bloomberg, Samsung lawyer Bill Price claimed: “Apple’s urgency stems from its inability to “compete against the new features” of the Galaxy S III, and the company is trying to “prevent a phone from getting to the public that is better than Apple’s in many, many respects.”
Reuters noted that several Google attorneys attended Thursday’s hearing. If Apple files for a temporary restraining order, the scheduled July 30 trial date would likely be delayed. Apple is also trying its best to kill HTC.
According to two separate reports today, Apple is once again facing roadblocks in its attempt to win sales bans in a patent-related litigation with Samsung and Motorola.
The first report comes from Bloomberg about a court in Dusseldorf, Germany, which said Apple would likely lose its bid for an injunction on Motorola’s Xoom tablet in the country:
The German court that banned Samsung Electronics Co.’s Galaxy 10.1 tablet sales last year is unlikely to grant Apple the same victory against Motorola Mobility’s device, Presiding Judge Johanna Brueckner-Hofmann said at a Dusseldorf hearing. The assessment is preliminary and may change after today’s arguments are reviewed. A ruling is scheduled for July 17… “We don’t think someone sits in a coffee house using the Xoom and hopes other people will think he owns an iPad,” Brueckner-Hofmann said.
The second report is related to the ongoing United States Samsung/Apple patent case. Today, CIO claimed Apple’s request to ban Samsung’s Galaxy Tab 10.1 was delayed due to a judge in California telling the court it will hold off on a ruling:
Apple’s bid to get a ban on sales in the U.S. of Samsung’s Galaxy Tab 10.1 tablet has been delayed after a federal court in California said on Monday it could not rule right away on Apple’s request for a preliminary injunction, while the matter is before an appeals court… The judge said Apple can renew its request for a preliminary injunction once the appeal court issues its ruling.
Update: Samsung has issued the following statement (via TNW) addressing the court’s decision to grant Apple the preliminary injunction:
Samsung is disappointed with the court’s decision and we intend to act immediately to defend our intellectual property rights through the ongoing legal proceedings in Germany and will continue to actively defend these rights throughout the world.
The request for injunction was filed with no notice to Samsung, and the order was issued without any hearing or presentation of evidence from Samsung.
We will take all necessary measures to ensure Samsung’s innovative mobile communications devices are available to customers in Europe and around the world.
This decision by the court in Germany in no way influences other legal proceedings filed with the courts in Europe and elsewhere.
Reports are coming in that Apple has been granted a preliminary injunction for the entire European Union (excluding Netherlands) that will halt distribution of Samsung’s Galaxy Tab 10.1. This comes on the heels of a postponed launch of the device in Australia due to a lawsuit with Apple.
The decision by the Regional Court of Dusseldorf in Germany to block sales of the device comes after a judge sided with Apple on claims that Galaxy Tab copied key design components related to the iPad 2. While Samsung can appeal the court’s decision sometime in the next month, the Telegraph’s Shane Richmond is quick to point out it would be heard by the same judge. Apple is also said to have a separate lawsuit filed in the Netherlands as well.
Samsung had this to say in a recent statement about their legal disputes with Apple:
“Samsung believes that there is no legal basis for this assertion. We will continue to serve our customers and distributors and the sale of Samsung products will be continued.”
And Apple has made their stance on the situation clear…
“It’s no coincidence that Samsung’s latest products look a lot like the iPhone and iPad, from the shape of the hardware to the user interface and even the packaging. This kind of blatant copying is wrong, and we need to protect Apple’s intellectual property when companies steal our ideas.”
