After $8M victory, Personal Audio sues Apple again over same patent
Less than two weeks after Personal Audio won an $8 million decision against Apple, the company has once again sued the iPod maker over the exact same patent, but in a complaint that targets new devices.
Filed this week in a U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of Texas, Personal Audio's latest legal action specifically cites the sixth-generation iPod nano, fourth-generation iPod shuffle, fourth-generation iPod touch, iPhone 4 and iPad 2. As in its previous complaint, the patent holder is accusing Apple of violating a patent related to music playlists.
Personal Audio first sued Apple in 2009, asking for $84 million in damages. Earlier this month, a jury found that the patents were indeed infringed upon by Apple, and ordered the Cupertino, Calif., company to pay $8 million.
The previous suit cited two patents, but the latest complaint filed this week brings back one of the inventions cited in the first lawsuit: U.S. Patent No. 6,199,076, entitled "Audio Program Player Including a Dynamic Program Selection Controller."
But the previous complaint, Personal Audio argues in its new lawsuit, exclusively covered the iPod classic, iPod mini, iPod nano generations one through five, first-generation iPad, and original iPhone through iPhone 3GS.
Apple has attempted to argue that the jury decision represents all products, regardless of whether they were named in the original suit. But Personal Audio believes it is entitled to seek even more damages from Apple for its alleged infringement.
"The jury instructions given by the Court specifically instructed the jury to disregard any evidence that Personal Audio was entitled to damages relating to products not accused in that litigation," the complaint reads.
"Furthermore, the verdict form instructed the jury to award damages only for the conduct the jury found to infringe. Consequently, the damages award issued by the jury on July 8, 2011, does not cover any other products."
The jury award handed out earlier this month, on July 8, was followed up with the latest lawsuit filed just 12 days later, on July 20. The products named in the new suit were not even unveiled when the original complaint was lodged in 2009.
Patent lawsuits have become a common occurrence in Apple's business, as the company is frequently challenged in court. Just last week AppleInsider discovered that Apple is looking to bolster its legal team with new patent experts as intellectual property complaints continue to mount.
Filed this week in a U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of Texas, Personal Audio's latest legal action specifically cites the sixth-generation iPod nano, fourth-generation iPod shuffle, fourth-generation iPod touch, iPhone 4 and iPad 2. As in its previous complaint, the patent holder is accusing Apple of violating a patent related to music playlists.
Personal Audio first sued Apple in 2009, asking for $84 million in damages. Earlier this month, a jury found that the patents were indeed infringed upon by Apple, and ordered the Cupertino, Calif., company to pay $8 million.
The previous suit cited two patents, but the latest complaint filed this week brings back one of the inventions cited in the first lawsuit: U.S. Patent No. 6,199,076, entitled "Audio Program Player Including a Dynamic Program Selection Controller."
But the previous complaint, Personal Audio argues in its new lawsuit, exclusively covered the iPod classic, iPod mini, iPod nano generations one through five, first-generation iPad, and original iPhone through iPhone 3GS.
Apple has attempted to argue that the jury decision represents all products, regardless of whether they were named in the original suit. But Personal Audio believes it is entitled to seek even more damages from Apple for its alleged infringement.
"The jury instructions given by the Court specifically instructed the jury to disregard any evidence that Personal Audio was entitled to damages relating to products not accused in that litigation," the complaint reads.
"Furthermore, the verdict form instructed the jury to award damages only for the conduct the jury found to infringe. Consequently, the damages award issued by the jury on July 8, 2011, does not cover any other products."
The jury award handed out earlier this month, on July 8, was followed up with the latest lawsuit filed just 12 days later, on July 20. The products named in the new suit were not even unveiled when the original complaint was lodged in 2009.
Patent lawsuits have become a common occurrence in Apple's business, as the company is frequently challenged in court. Just last week AppleInsider discovered that Apple is looking to bolster its legal team with new patent experts as intellectual property complaints continue to mount.
Comments
Let's face it, Apple = Monsanto
Apple is SOOOOO original!
Let's face it, Apple = Monsanto
Didn't someone else copy/paste this a lot recently? What, was he banned and you're picking up for him?
Chances are Apple is going just settle out of court and start paying the fees to license the patent (unless they're too high, in which case Apple will file an unfair practices suit against them).
I personally think that this patent is very very broad so it sucks that Apple (and anyone else licensing) is suck in this infinite loop.
If not, then why not spread it out...this week sue for the 16 GB iPod touch, next week the iPhone 4, then the iPad 32Gb verizon+wifi model. I mean with all of Apple's differing product line-up, if they do this right they can sue for each and every product one after the other and be on Apple's virtual payroll.
This is some ridiculous BS.
So if Ford were taken to court for faulty fuel injectors across all of their models...could they be taken to court individually for each vehicle model? This just seems wrong and frivolous.
"Furthermore, the verdict form instructed the jury to award damages only for the conduct the jury found to infringe. Consequently, the damages award issued by the jury on July 8, 2011, does not cover any other products."
Original was not for all devices. I agree that this will be settled out of court - it is not as if this is a significant loss for apple in dollar terms.
Apple is SOOOOO original!
Let's face it, Apple = Monsanto
You do know Einstein's explanation about insanity... right?!
Didn't someone else copy/paste this a lot recently? What, was he banned and you're picking up for him?
He clearly thinks if he repeats something ridiculous often enough people will believe him. Bless.
He clearly thinks if he repeats something ridiculous often enough people will believe him. Bless.
Well, it worked for Hitler. At least for a while.
And if the laws of the Internet are correct, I think I just lost that argument. Which is a shame, because he's the one who's wrong.
They won $8 million the first time arround...I wonder how much it cost them in lawyers fees?
All of it. That's why they want to sue again.
All of it. That's why they want to sue again.
except this time it will be much easier for them to win, because the previous judgement stands.
It seems pretty lazy to not have entered all the infringing devices if they felt that each device had to be named specifically. Or maybe clever, depending on the legal situation. Would adding more infringing devices meant that the original case taken much longer than a second case?
Essentially yes, since they'd have to prove each device was infringing independently. Both they and Apple agreed to defer other devices without prejudice - just to simplify the legal proceedings.
What did they 'invent' exactly that Apple 'copied'?
Roughly stated having a playlist that can be downloaded from one device to another.
I could be more specific but then I'd have to read the patent again, and then I'd get depressed.
Essentially yes, since they'd have to prove each device was infringing independently. Both they and Apple agreed to defer other devices without prejudice - just to simplify the legal proceedings.
Is the standard of proving each device a lot lower once they've previously proved other devices infringed?
Is the standard of proving each device a lot lower once they've previously proved other devices infringed?
Not necessarily, but it's harder now for Apple to claim that the patent is invalid. Given how broad the claims are on the patent I don't think infringement is hard for them to prove. Syncing a playlist with iTunes constituted infringement if memory serves. If they established that such syncing constitutes infringement in the previous suit then they now only have to demonstrate that these devices sync in the same way - which is pretty easy.
Unless Apple has dug up some kick-ass prior art in the meantime they'll end up paying here.
"Furthermore, the verdict form instructed the jury to award damages only for the conduct the jury found to infringe. Consequently, the damages award issued by the jury on July 8, 2011, does not cover any other products."
Original was not for all devices. I agree that this will be settled out of court - it is not as if this is a significant loss for apple in dollar terms.
Some things should not be patent-able. The state of patent law in this country (and maybe others) is pretty ridiculous.