Serial patent troll Acacia Research again sues Apple, cellular carriers over wireless pate...

Posted:
in General Discussion
Apple and a handful of partner cellular carriers are the target of a new lawsuit leveled by Acacia Research subsidiary Cellular Communications Equipment, which alleges the iPhone maker infringed and continues to infringe on four patents developed by Nokia covering messaging, emergency alerts and other key cellular technologies.




Filed in the patent holder friendly court of Eastern District Court of Texas, the Cellular Communications Equipment suit targets a number of technologies vital to Apple's products and services.

Specifically, CCE is leveraging U.S. Patents No. 6,892,074, 8,902,770, 8,254,872 and 9,037,129, each of which was developed by Nokia Siemens. The patents-in-suit were later assigned to notorious patent assertion entity Acacia Research before making their way into CCE's arsenal.

Apple is accused of infringing the '074 patent for "Selective Message Service to Primary and Secondary Mobile Stations," which describes a basic text messaging technique for multiple devices. In particular, Apple's iMessage service allows users to receive and view text messages on both a primary device such as an iPhone, as well as a secondary device like an iPad.

The '872 patent for "Simplified Method for IMS Registration in the Event of Emergency Calls" covers technology that allows user devices to skip IP Multimedia Subsystem registration to accelerate call sessions. Apple's has in the past streamlined its iOS interface to grant users quick access to emergency call capabilities, for example iPhone owners can initiate such communications without unlocking their device.

CCE's '770 and '129 patents deal with cellular technologies. The '770 patent for "Carrier indicator field usage and configuration in carrier aggregation" covers the process of changing the format of downlink control channels, while the '129 patent for "Method, network and device for information provision by using paging and cell broadcast services" details techniques of receiving emergency broadcast content.

The lawsuit also names AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, T-Mobile, Boost Mobile as defendants in the case, as each carrier supplies customers with iPhones and iPads that allegedly infringe of CCE's assigned IP. Further, Apple and its affiliates are member organizations of the 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP), which has solicited and received notice of standard essential patents and other IP, including the patents-in-suit. 3GPP certifications, and improvements on said technologies, are mentioned in three of the four patent documents.

Apple products from the iPhone 3GS to the iPhone 7 series, as well as certain iPod touch models and all iPad iterations, are named as infringing devices.

Today's lawsuit continues CCE's litigation against Apple and its carrier partners. In 2015, the NPE filed a series of lawsuits with the same court claiming infringement of owned patents related to LTE data networks. AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile and hardware manufacturers Samsung and HTC were also named as defendants in the ongoing action.

The new CCE litigation arrives four months after Apple lodged an antitrust lawsuit against Acacia and other aligned PAEs for helping Nokia "extract and extort exorbitant revenues" from handset manufacturers. Apple argues that Nokia has itself become a type of patent troll after selling its hardware business to Microsoft in 2013.

Though Nokia still maintains agreements to license standard essential patents under fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory, or FRAND, terms, the firm has been transferring said IP to third-party NPEs in hopes of extracting even more money, Apple says. Acacia is one of the most aggressive of Nokia's supposedly friendly PAEs, suing Apple some 42 times in 10 years. In September, Acacia won a $22.1 million judgment against Apple over networking patents.

In its latest action against Apple, CCE is seeking damages, past and ongoing royalties, and interest related to infringing devices.

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 10
    Just like you cannot libel the dead, so a non manufacturing entity should not be able to profit from a patent.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 2 of 10
    MikeymikeMikeymike Posts: 100member
    Just like you cannot libel the dead, so a non manufacturing entity should not be able to profit from a patent.
    Huh? 
    So I invent something; and just because I am not a manufacturer, any other entity who is a manufacturer can come along and take it from me?
    boredumb
  • Reply 3 of 10
    Why can someone patent making it easier to call 911?  I support inventors but I doubt the person that actually invented this super obvious solution will actually see a penny for it.   All just modern high-tech ambulance chasers !!!!
    jbdragonanton zuykov
  • Reply 4 of 10
    Mikeymike said:
    Just like you cannot libel the dead, so a non manufacturing entity should not be able to profit from a patent.
    Huh? 
    So I invent something; and just because I am not a manufacturer, any other entity who is a manufacturer can come along and take it from me?

    No, if you own the patent and you cannot use it because you do not want to manufacture it, then you hold it until someone does want to use it, then you sell it to them. 

    Here's an interesting article I've just come across. http://www.fosspatents.com/2015/04/ericssons-pseudo-sale-of-patents-to.html


  • Reply 5 of 10
    Mikeymike said:
    Just like you cannot libel the dead, so a non manufacturing entity should not be able to profit from a patent.
    Huh? 
    So I invent something; and just because I am not a manufacturer, any other entity who is a manufacturer can come along and take it from me?

    No, if you own the patent and you cannot use it because you do not want to manufacture it, then you hold it until someone does want to use it, then you sell it to them. 

    Here's an interesting article I've just come across. http://www.fosspatents.com/2015/04/ericssons-pseudo-sale-of-patents-to.html


    So you want to sell your great idea for a once off fee, instead of licensing it and milking it for the rest of your life?
    lol.
  • Reply 6 of 10
    Just like you cannot libel the dead, so a non manufacturing entity should not be able to profit from a patent.

    Using that logic, a property owner who doesn't actually use the property owned should not be able to profit from the property being used by others.  So they shouldn't be allowed to rent it out, and must let everyone use it as they see fit.
  • Reply 7 of 10
    Mikeymike said:
    Just like you cannot libel the dead, so a non manufacturing entity should not be able to profit from a patent.
    Huh? 
    So I invent something; and just because I am not a manufacturer, any other entity who is a manufacturer can come along and take it from me?

    No, if you own the patent and you cannot use it because you do not want to manufacture it, then you hold it until someone does want to use it, then you sell it to them. 

    Here's an interesting article I've just come across. http://www.fosspatents.com/2015/04/ericssons-pseudo-sale-of-patents-to.html


    So you want to sell your great idea for a once off fee, instead of licensing it and milking it for the rest of your life?
    lol.
    Well something is only worth what someone else will pay for it, if no one thinks it's worth funding the production then it's not worth that much is it? If it is a product that can be 'milked' for eternity then it would be worth a lot to sell and if no one thinks it is, then it isn't even if I think it is. Really I don't even know why I'm bothering to answer.

    Just like you cannot libel the dead, so a non manufacturing entity should not be able to profit from a patent.

    Using that logic, a property owner who doesn't actually use the property owned should not be able to profit from the property being used by others.  So they shouldn't be allowed to rent it out, and must let everyone use it as they see fit.
    Comparing a house with an idea is obviously a false analogy, more than false it's plainly absurd.
  • Reply 8 of 10
    jbdragonjbdragon Posts: 1,228member
    If you have to file a lawsuit in the Eastern District Court of Texas, then really, you're patents are worth crap.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 9 of 10
    Acacia Research very likely knows their patents are useless abroad as patent laws are local and subject to local patent office regulations (eg. nobody in sane part of Europe gives damn about USPTO). The patent laws are incompatible and many of US patents would be kicked out from Euirope as they need to pass test of few questions (one of them practical use by patent owner). As I mentioned 15 years ago on forums related to those lawsuits, do not be affraid of innovation even if it violates US Patent, but it is local country innovation. Europeans are much better educated on patents, because it mandaory part of engineering university education (I had to pass it years ago so no lawyer gives me BS and I could write patent definition on my own to apply to local office).

    So how does this information relate to US market? Well if we do not ask owners of their practical use for patent (particality and intentions trial questions) then US innovantion will be stalled by such companies like Acacia Research and other countries will be doing this (most likely China that does not need to follow USPTO and it mastered cloning process). So ths calls for USPTo practices reform in the first place and stop making business on patenting just ideas that may be brought by many people at the same time in different regions of the world.
  • Reply 10 of 10
    carnegiecarnegie Posts: 138member
    Just like you cannot libel the dead, so a non manufacturing entity should not be able to profit from a patent.
    Such a principle would be practically impossible to implement.
Sign In or Register to comment.