or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple, Samsung sued by ZiiLABS over alleged infringement of graphics patents
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple, Samsung sued by ZiiLABS over alleged infringement of graphics patents

post #1 of 34
Thread Starter 
In a lawsuit filed against Apple and Samsung on Monday, ZiiLABS, a subsidiary of A/V solutions giant Creative Technology, claims the companies infringed on ten U.S. patents, many of which deal with graphics processing.

ZiiLABS


The suit was lodged in the patent holder-friendly Eastern District of Texas and asserts ten patents-in-suit against a number of Apple and Samsung devices. More specifically, the litigation targets system-on-chip designs manufactured by Samsung and used in both companies' devices.

Not only is ZiiLABS going after mobile devices, but Macs as well. Claimed infringing computers include MacBooks, iMacs and Mac Pros, as well as what appears to be nearly every Samsung device made in the past couple years.

As the company, formerly known as 3DLabs, Inc, deals mainly with graphics processing hardware and software, most of the patents asserted are within this realm of expertise. Currently, ZiiLABS is marketing the "StemCell" ARM-based applications processor lineup, a version of which has recently seen use in 3M's mobile projector. The chips are also used in parent company Creative's various products.

ZiiLABS is asserting the following patents:

  • Patent No. 5,831,637 for "Video stream data mixing for 3D graphics systems"
  • Patent No. 5,835,096 for a "Rendering system using 3D texture-processing hardware for accelerated 2D rendering"
  • Patent 6,111,584 for a "Rendering system with mini-patch retrieval from local texture storage"
  • Patent No. 6,650,333 for "Multi-pool texture memory management"
  • Patent No. 6,683,615 for "Doubly-virtualized texture memory"
  • Patent No. 6,977,649 for "3D graphics rendering with selective read suspend"
  • Patent No. 7,050,061 for "Autonomous address translation in graphic subsystem"
  • Patent No. 7,187,383 for "Yield enhancement of complex chips"
  • Patent No. 7,710,425 for "Graphic memory management with invisible hardware-managed page faulting"
  • Patent No. 8,144,156 for "Sequencer with async SIMD array"

The validity of ZiiLabs' accusations are unclear, however, as Apple has custom-designed its A-series chips since the iPhone 5's A6 SoC. Prior to that, the company used highly modified versions of existing architectures, though all have been manufactured at Samsung's foundries in Austin, Texas.

ZiiLABS is seeking past and future damages, as well as injunctions against Apple and Samsung. A hearing date has yet to be announced.

post #2 of 34
These guys are fighting against some of the biggest tech Giants in the World. Haha.... Just by them out, make it easy.
post #3 of 34
ZiiLabs in SINGAPORE hires a lawfirm in The Eastern District of Texas to sue Apple. Another patent Holding scum bucket looking for a payout. It will be great when they can no longer try for an injunction and they pay lawyers fees if they lose. I hope they lose this case quickly!
post #4 of 34

"a subsidiary of A/V solutions giant Creative Technology" .. not "Another patent Holding scum bucket".

 

They are quite big on windows ! I think Apple had to pay them 100 million US$ already once for the iPod design.

post #5 of 34
Doesn't Apple and Samsung liscense the GPU Tech. Shouldn't the infringement be suit be targetted at Intel, PowerVr , NVIDIA and AMD.
post #6 of 34
Quote:

ZiiLABS is seeking past and future past and future damages, as well as injunctions against Apple and Samsung...

Does AI even know what a proofreader is? This is horrible.

post #7 of 34
Here we go again.
post #8 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by tundraBuggy View Post

ZiiLabs in SINGAPORE hires a lawfirm in The Eastern District of Texas to sue Apple. Another patent Holding scum bucket looking for a payout. It will be great when they can no longer try for an injunction and they pay lawyers fees if they lose. I hope they lose this case quickly!

This company is actually a producer of something, so the only "patent troll" behavior they are displaying is the court they chose.

The bigger problem is this court. When the entire world knows about this court, shouldn't we examine it's outlying behavior? Apple and Samsung should join together in this for having the trial moved to CA. They both have large presences in CA and it would be more convenient for them, plus closer for those traveling from Asia.
post #9 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Amhran View Post
 

Does AI even know what a proofreader is? This is horrible.

 

Past and future and past and future and past and future and past and future

 

Catchy.  But I'll stick with the tried and true.

 

Boots and pants and boots and pants....

post #10 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frood View Post

Past and future and past and future and past and future and past and future

Catchy.  But I'll stick with the tried and true.

Boots and pants and boots and pants....

Ice cream and cake and cake...!

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #11 of 34
Originally Posted by Lord Amhran View Post
Does AI even know what a proofreader is? This is horrible.

 

Well now, let’s not be hasty. By saying “past and future past and future”, they could mean ‘past past damages’, ‘future past damages’, ‘past future damages’ and ‘future future damages’ all at once.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #12 of 34
Moody Blues anyone?
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #13 of 34
Strange bedfellows. I wonder if Sammy will blame Apple and vice versa.
post #14 of 34

quoting

"  Well now, let’s not be hasty. By saying “past and future past and future”, they could mean ‘past past damages’, ‘future past damages’, ‘past future damages’ and ‘future future damages’ all at once."

 

 

hahahahahahahahahahaha

post #15 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Amhran View Post
 

Does AI even know what a proofreader is? This is horrible.

that is a normal problem with this website anymore.  read any feature and you will see it two or three times.  

noting how long this site loads tells me that they are not spending the money from all these friggen ads on speeding it up. and after seeing the constant repetition they are not spending it on a cheap college proofreader either.

post #16 of 34

Patent law must be in terrible shape if these sorts of frivolous claims can be filed against a company like Apple.

post #17 of 34

Why do you think it is frivolous?

Do you think that spending time,building labs and resources,inventing a new and better way to do things , patenting it and then having your patent infringed upon by two multinational companies is frivolous?

I suppose you would be ok if a car you built from scratch in your garage was stolen  and the police would dismiss your complaint as "frivolous".

post #18 of 34

3DLabs were one of the innovators in 3D graphics technologies.  I wouldn't assume these patents are frivolous, even if they have ended up in some funnily-named ARM SoC vendor that's a subsidiary of Creative.

 

I would also assume that companies like AMD and NVIDIA have licensed them in the past, probably via cross-licensing deals.

 

Now has Imagination Tech licensed the patents? Have they licensed them for re-licensing onwards, or would another sub-licensee (Apple, Samsung) also need to license the patents?  This seems to be a common issue in patent cases :/

 

The court case (you can't blame companies for using a court that historically favours litigants) will decide whether the devices actually infringe, and whether Apple and Samsung should have the license or not.

 

I wonder if they're asking $8 per patent per device...

post #19 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 

Well now, let’s not be hasty. By saying “past and future past and future”, they could mean ‘past past damages’, ‘future past damages’, ‘past future damages’ and ‘future future damages’ all at once.

 

So what the heck is a "future damage"?  It sounds eerily like a "future crime".  Has Creative Tech. found themselves a trio of precogs, and set up a precrime unit, complete with the clickety-click of little spiders?

post #20 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

ZiiLABS, a subsidiary of A/V solutions giant Creative Technology

 

Creative Technology Ltd. (CREAF)

Market Cap: 144.02M

 

 

Or, alternatively, 

Creative Technology Ltd. (C76.SI)

Market Cap: 179.15M

 

Either way, doesn't sound like such a "giant" to me. Hmm...

 

Sounds more like something Facebook would gobble up in an instant, using pocket change, just to gain their email directory.  /s

post #21 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by SudoNym View Post
 

Patent law must be in terrible shape if these sorts of frivolous claims can be filed against a company like Apple.

 

No idea if it's frivolous or not. Just one more for the courts to slog through.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #22 of 34
If this has merit, Apple should then gobble this up before Samsung does.
post #23 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ogoh_Ogoh View Post
 

"a subsidiary of A/V solutions giant Creative Technology" .. not "Another patent Holding scum bucket".

 

They are quite big on windows ! I think Apple had to pay them 100 million US$ already once for the iPod design.

 

I say "Another patent Holding scum bucket" simply because in the new patent troll laws, a company will not be able to wait until another infringing company expends "sweat" making the technology successful then decide to sue. Thats exactly what ZiiLabs did. Secondly, Eastern District of Texas?? Really?? The whole process just stinks! I want ZiiLabs to get spanked heavily and learn a valuable lesson regarding patent trolling and set a president for all other trolls!

post #24 of 34
Yup, East Texas is pretty darn popular if you have a patent that needs monetizing. Check out this pretty extensive list of other patent cases filed in East Texas in a single November week. Looks like almost big tech is represented.

MPHJ Technology Investments et al v. Research Now Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-00962l

Nov. 20

• Hilltop Technology v. Wintek Corp. et al Case No. 2:13-cv-00964

• Hilltop Technology v. TPK Holding Co. Ltd. et al Case No. 2:13-cv-00965

• Adrain v. Amazon.com Inc. et al Case No. 2:13-cv-00967

• eDekka v. Amazon.com Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-00968

• eDekka v. Apple Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-00969

• eDekka v. BestBuy Case No. 2:13-cv-00970

• eDekka v. BlackBerry Corp. et al Case No. 2:13-cv-00971

• eDekka v. CDW Corp. Case No. 2:13-cv-00972

• eDekka v. Costco Wholesale Corp. Case No. 2:13-cv-00973

• eDekka v. J.C. Penney Corp. Inc. et al Case No. 2:13-cv-00974

• eDekka v. Liberty Interactive Corp. et al Case No. 2:13-cv-00975

• eDekka v. Macys.com Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-00976

• eDekka v. Office Depot Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-00977

• eDekka v. Pizza Hut Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-00978

• eDekka v. Sally Beauty Supply Case No. 2:13-cv-00979

• eDekka v. Samsung Telecommunications America Case No. 2:13-cv-00980

• eDekka v. Sears Roebuck and Co. et al Case No. 2:13-cv-00981

• eDekka v. Sony Electronics Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-00982

• eDekka v. Staples Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-00983

• eDekka v. Symantec Corp. Case No. 2:13-cv-00984

• eDekka v. Target Corp. Case No. 2:13-cv-00985

• eDekka v. The Gap Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-00986

• eDekka v. W.W. Grainger Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-00987



Nov. 21

• Vantage Point Technology Inc. v. Apple Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-00989

• Vantage Point Technology Inc. v. LSI Corp. Case No. 2:13-cv-00990

• Vantage Point Technology Inc. v. MediaTek USA Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-00991

• Vantage Point Technology Inc. v. Panasonic Corp of North America Case No. 2:13-cv-00992

• Vantage Point Technology Inc. v. Sharp Electronics Corp. Case No. 2:13-cv-00993



Nov. 22

• Harvatek Corp. v. Nichia America Corp. et al Case No. 6:13-cv-00901


Nov. 26

Long Corner Consumer Electronics v. Acer America Corp. Case No. 2:13-cv-00998

Long Corner Consumer Electronics v. Amazon.com Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-00999

• Long Corner Consumer Electronics v. Apple Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-01000

• Long Corner Consumer Electronics v. ASUS Computer International Case No. 2:13-cv-01001

• Long Corner Consumer Electronics v. Barnes & Noble Inc. et al Case No. 2:13-cv-01002

• Long Corner Consumer Electronics v. BlackBerry Corp. Case No. 2:13-cv-01003

• Long Corner Consumer Electronics v. Coolpad Technologies Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-01004

• Long Corner Consumer Electronics v. Fuhu Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-01005

• Long Corner Consumer Electronics v. Fujitsu America Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-01006

• Long Corner Consumer Electronics v. Huawei Device USA Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-01007

• Long Corner Consumer Electronics v. HTC America Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-01008

• Long Corner Consumer Electronics v. Kyocera Communications Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-01009

• Long Corner Consumer Electronics v. Lenovo (United States) Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-01010

• Long Corner Consumer Electronics v. LG Electronics U.S.A. Inc. et al Case No. 2:13-cv-01011

• Long Corner Consumer Electronics v. Panasonic Corp. of North America Case No. 2:13-cv-01012

• Long Corner Consumer Electronics v. ViewSonic Corp. Case No. 2:13-cv-01013

• Long Corner Consumer Electronics v. ViewSonic Corp. Case No. 2:13-cv-01014

• Biscotti Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. Case No. 2:13-cv-01015

• Pi-Net International Inc. v. Staples Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-01016

• Pi-Net International Inc. v. Lowe’s Home Centers Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-01017

• Pi-Net International Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-01018

• Pi-Net International Inc. v. Office Depot Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-01019

• Pi-Net International Inc. v. Footlocker.com Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-01020

• Pi-Net International Inc. v. GameStop Corp. Case No. 2:13-cv-01021

• Pi-Net International Inc. v. BestBuy.com Case No. 2:13-cv-01022

• Pi-Net International Inc. v. American Eagle Outfitters Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-01023

• Pi-Net International Inc. v. Sears Holdings Corp. Case No. 2:13-cv-01024

• Pi-Net International Inc. v. Chico’s FAS Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-01025

• Pi-Net International Inc. v. Edible Arrangements International Case No. 2:13-cv-01026

• Pi-Net International Inc. v. Officemax Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-01027

• Pi-Net International Inc. v. W.W. Grainger Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-01028

• Pi-Net International Inc. v. Dillard’s Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-01029

• Pi-Net International Inc. v. The Finish Line Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-01030

• Pi-Net International Inc. v. Victoria’s Secret Direct Brand Management Case No. 2:13-cv-01031

• Pi-Net International Inc. v. The Jones Group Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-01032

• Pi-Net International Inc. v. Bath & Body Works Brand Management Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-01033

• Pi-Net International Inc. v. Jos. A. Bank Clothiers Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-01034

• Pi-Net International Inc. v. J.C. Penney Co. Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-01035

• Pi-Net International Inc. v. Macys.com Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-01036

• Pi-Net International Inc. v. Aeropostale Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-01037

• Pi-Net International Inc. v. Target Corp. Case No. 2:13-cv-01038

• Pi-Net International Inc. v. PETCO Animal Supplies Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-01039

• Pi-Net International Inc. v. Kohl’s Department Stores Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-01040

• Pi-Net International Inc. v. Autozone Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-01041

• Pi-Net International Inc. v. Toys “R” US-Delaware Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-01042

• Pi-Net International Inc. v. CVS Caremark Corp. Case No. 2:13-cv-01043

• Pi-Net International Inc. v. Walgreen Co. Case No. 2:13-cv-01044

• Pi-Net International Inc. v. Home Depot U.S.A. Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-01045

Nov. 27

• Trover Group Inc. et al v. i3 International Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-01046

• Trover Group Inc. et al v. Dedicated Micros USA Case No. 2:13-cv-01047


Nov. 25

• Uniloc USA Inc. et al v. ABB Ltd. Case No. 6:13-cv-00906

• Uniloc USA Inc. et al v. Exchangeit B.V. Case No. 6:13-cv-00907

• Uniloc USA Inc. et al v. IAR Systems Group AB et al Case No. 6:13-cv-00908

• Uniloc USA Inc. et al v. Merrick & Co. Case No. 6:13-cv-00909

• Uniloc USA Inc. et al v. Micro Focus International Case No. 6:13-cv-00910

• Uniloc USA Inc. et al v. Missler Software et al Case No. 6:13-cv-00911

• Uniloc USA Inc. et al v. PCI Geomatics Group Inc. et al Case No. 6:13-cv-00912

• Uniloc USA Inc. et al v. Pharsight Corp. Case No. 6:13-cv-00914

• Uniloc USA Inc. et al v. Sage Group Plc. et al Case No. 6:13-cv-00915

• Uniloc USA Inc. et al v. Synopsys Inc. Case No. 6:13-cv-00917


Nov. 27

• NYC IP Inc. v. Apple Inc. Case No. 6:13-cv-00921

• Adaptix Inc. v. NEC Casio Mobile Communications Ltd. et al Case No. 6:13-cv-00922
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #25 of 34
Apparently the company is fond of the Nintendo Wii logo.
post #26 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post



• Biscotti Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. Case No. 2:13-cv-01015

 

That one made me laugh, probably due to the name.

post #27 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by imt1 View Post

If this has merit, Apple should then gobble this up before Samsung does.

 

I doubt this company would sell their IP. Far too lucrative to collect royalties until the patents expire.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #28 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by SudoNym View Post

Patent law must be in terrible shape if these sorts of frivolous claims can be filed against a company like Apple.

It isn't a frivolous claim if the patents are valid. Further this company is far from being a patent troll. In the end it comes down to did the Power VR hardware infringe. That will be difficult to determine.

People seem to get wrapped up in the idea that any company that tries to protect its patents is some type of troll. That is unfortunate and frankly seems to highlight a complete misunderstanding of why the patent system even exists. The patent system is there to protect you as an inventor, simple as that. So if this company did invent these technologies and Apple did use then via the use of PowerVR technology then the suit is justified. The real question then becomes are the technologies identical and thus one a rip off of another.
post #29 of 34
You really don't know what you are talking about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tundraBuggy View Post

I say "Another patent Holding scum bucket" simply because in the new patent troll laws, a company will not be able to wait until another infringing company expends "sweat" making the technology successful then decide to sue.
You can only mount a law suite when you have evidence you think favors your case. You have no idea how long it took Ziilabs to build the case nor how long they have attempted a licensing deal with Apple.
Quote:
Thats exactly what ZiiLabs did. Secondly, Eastern District of Texas?? Really??
Why not? Would you choose a court that is known to be hostile to the idea of patents? In any event this court does nothing outstanding other than to enforce patent law, it isn't like they are making it all up as they go along. Beyond that you never hear about the suites that fail in this district.
Quote:
The whole process just stinks!
Not at all! The process is the only thing we have to protect the inventor. Is it perfect, certainly not but no legal process is.
Quote:
I want ZiiLabs to get spanked heavily and learn a valuable lesson regarding patent trolling and set a president for all other trolls!

If you believe that then you are totally ignorant with respect to what is happening in this case and 3D Labs long history developing technology like this. Either the hardware Apple is using infringes or it doesn't, at this point it is up to the courts to decide.
post #30 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post
 

 

I doubt this company would sell their IP. Far too lucrative to collect royalties until the patents expire.

Its wasn't about buying the IP. Its about outright buying the company. Its public

post #31 of 34
Patent Troll on…
post #32 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by imt1 View Post

Its wasn't about buying the IP. Its about outright buying the company. Its public

Yes, and unless the offer is for billions, I have real doubts a sale would be entertained.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #33 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adre Naline View Post

Doesn't Apple and Samsung liscense the GPU Tech. Shouldn't the infringement be suit be targetted at Intel, PowerVr , NVIDIA and AMD.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adre Naline View Post

Doesn't Apple and Samsung liscense the GPU Tech. Shouldn't the infringement be suit be targetted at Intel, PowerVr , NVIDIA and AMD.

Well Samsung and Moto decide that the can withdraw their licenses for SEPs that Apple had agreements with Qualcomm and Infineon/Intel, so now anything goes?

I agree with you opinions, but the courts need to decide.
post #34 of 34
I say "Another patent Holding scum bucket" simply because in the new patent troll laws, a company will not be able to wait until another infringing company expends "sweat" making the technology successful then decide to sue.

You can only mount a law suite when you have evidence you think favors your case. You have no idea how long it took Ziilabs to build the case nor how long they have attempted a licensing deal with Apple.

 

-- Samsung was informed August 2013, ZiiLabs waited until they were successful....they are truly Patent trolls.

 

 

Quote:
Thats exactly what ZiiLabs did. Secondly, Eastern District of Texas?? Really??

Why not? Would you choose a court that is known to be hostile to the idea of patents? In any event this court does nothing outstanding other than to enforce patent law, it isn't like they are making it all up as they go along. Beyond that you never hear about the suites that fail in this district.

 

In the Eastern District of Texas, If you bother to do any research, One of the Judges and the Patent Attorney are Father/Son.

This isn't a problem for you? The fact that there is a 90% Plaintiff win rate.......come on......think a little  bit.

 

 

Quote:
The whole process just stinks!

Not at all! The process is the only thing we have to protect the inventor. Is it perfect, certainly not but no legal process is.

 

The process in place better serves Patent trolls than inventors......Thats the problem being addressed.....The process currently Stinks!

 

Quote:
I want ZiiLabs to get spanked heavily and learn a valuable lesson regarding patent trolling and set a president for all other trolls!


If you believe that then you are totally ignorant with respect to what is happening in this case and 3D Labs long history developing technology like this. Either the hardware Apple is using infringes or it doesn't, at this point it is up to the courts to decide.

 

I think you're the ignorant one in this discussion, The process stinks because its not doing what it was designed to do. I assume you believe in Santa Clause and the Easter bunny as well in your perfect little world. Its time to make changes in the system.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple, Samsung sued by ZiiLABS over alleged infringement of graphics patents