Apple's motion to intervene in Lodsys patent dispute thrown out by judge
A Texas judge last week dismissed a motion that would have allowed Apple to intervene in patent-holding firm Lodsys' ongoing attacks against iOS app makers, hindering the Cupertino company's ability to protect developers that provide the backbone of its important iOS ecosystem.
After two years of fighting to render aid to iOS app developers under fire from Lodsys, Apple saw its motion to intervene shot down by East Texas Judge Rodney Gilstrap, who rendered the company's challenge moot in an order last Tuesday, reports ArsTechnica.
The publication notes that Judge Gilstrap's decision not only dismissed Apple's motion, but allowed Lodsys to settle all cases with defendants.
According to Apple, the so-called "patent troll" uses a litigation technique in which app makers are threatened with patent infringement claims, or in some cases sued, to force "quick and cheap" settlements. Lodsys then dismisses or stays any claims before Apple's own counterclaims are ripe for decision.
By asking for relatively small royalties, Lodsys has been successful in extracting money from developers that would rather pay the fees than fight a a possibly drawn-out and expensive court battle.
Since 2011, Lodsys has been systematically targeting iOS app developers with patent infringement assertions regarding in-app purchasing. Apple, which already licensed the patents-in-suit with their previous owner Intellectual Ventures, argues that the existing arrangement should extend to cover iOS app devs that use the company's in-app purchasing API.
While Apple's argument, much of which dealt with a broader scope of the patent troll's tactics, may have been valid for an active case, but the motion was technically applied to suits in which the parties had already settled. Lodsys consequently filed to dismiss Apple's claims as moot, a motion Judge Gilstrap agreed with last week. He elaborated that Apple's broader claims were not applicable to the instant action due to the vast scope of cases it considered.
The jurist proposed Apple take action against Lodsys itself, though the effectiveness of such a suit is questionable given that the patent-holding firm already stated it recognizes Apple's license and has no grievance with the company. Another option could be for Apple to intervene in an upcoming case, but Lodsys' "quickly and cheaply" tactic may thwart any such attempts until that very strategy comes under scrutiny.
After two years of fighting to render aid to iOS app developers under fire from Lodsys, Apple saw its motion to intervene shot down by East Texas Judge Rodney Gilstrap, who rendered the company's challenge moot in an order last Tuesday, reports ArsTechnica.
The publication notes that Judge Gilstrap's decision not only dismissed Apple's motion, but allowed Lodsys to settle all cases with defendants.
According to Apple, the so-called "patent troll" uses a litigation technique in which app makers are threatened with patent infringement claims, or in some cases sued, to force "quick and cheap" settlements. Lodsys then dismisses or stays any claims before Apple's own counterclaims are ripe for decision.
By asking for relatively small royalties, Lodsys has been successful in extracting money from developers that would rather pay the fees than fight a a possibly drawn-out and expensive court battle.
Since 2011, Lodsys has been systematically targeting iOS app developers with patent infringement assertions regarding in-app purchasing. Apple, which already licensed the patents-in-suit with their previous owner Intellectual Ventures, argues that the existing arrangement should extend to cover iOS app devs that use the company's in-app purchasing API.
While Apple's argument, much of which dealt with a broader scope of the patent troll's tactics, may have been valid for an active case, but the motion was technically applied to suits in which the parties had already settled. Lodsys consequently filed to dismiss Apple's claims as moot, a motion Judge Gilstrap agreed with last week. He elaborated that Apple's broader claims were not applicable to the instant action due to the vast scope of cases it considered.
The jurist proposed Apple take action against Lodsys itself, though the effectiveness of such a suit is questionable given that the patent-holding firm already stated it recognizes Apple's license and has no grievance with the company. Another option could be for Apple to intervene in an upcoming case, but Lodsys' "quickly and cheaply" tactic may thwart any such attempts until that very strategy comes under scrutiny.
Comments
The judges in East Texas are so completely inbred and in cahoots with the patent trolls, it's not even funny.
Can we just declare war on eastern Texas? Technology issues should not be tried in that region as there is too much bias towards economic benefits to the plaintiffs filing there, Motel 6 is probably $186 per night, with special attorney discount.
I suggest all developers move to New Zealand and tell Lodsys to go hang themselves.
Take a look at who is representing Lodsys....
Now take a look at who is on Eastern District Court...
Hmm, those names look awfully similar.
I am sure there is no conflict of interest there anywhere.
When I read the headline this came to mind: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcHWeAzoXd4 Can the Eastern Texas District be slapped a class action suit for mistrials resulting from conflict of interest and corruption?
Final action did not penalize the police captain or judge but just made them stop. The level of actual justice in this country is being flushed down the drain for a quick buck and local power.
Its a sad state of affairs.
Just file it somewhere other than east texas
Is that true? So if you developed an app there in NZ, could I steal it and tell you to go suck my big fat nether regions? Does Samsung have an office there?
Same thing should apply to this shell company! If they are just empty holding then they shouldn't be allow to trade such thing. There is no economic benefit here apart from those who have. And they get more.
Is that true? So if you developed an app there in NZ, could I steal it and tell you to go suck my big fat nether regions? Does Samsung have an office there?
No, that'll still be a breach of copyright, intellectual property and possibly trademark laws, so you will rightfully be sued.
What you could do is reverse engineer the application, and write your own version, or just produce an app which does something very similar, as long as you don't simply steal the other guy's code.
In other words those cases are done and are not subject to a "Legal Mulligan" in which case the judge was 100% correct in throwing out Apple's motion.
Judge Rodney Gilstrap:
Another judge and police captain in a small town next to east Texas finally got caught stopping motorist and coming up with false charges, they then would demand instant payment or the couples kids would be taken into protective custody since the parents were criminals and did not pay fine.
Final action did not penalize the police captain or judge but just made them stop. The level of actual justice in this country is being flushed down the drain for a quick buck and local power.
Its a sad state of affairs.
You are totally off the point, this is a US federal court, and the judge is appointed by the president, he is a native of Florida, and may even know something the average readers on this forum do not know about law, at least his doctorate in law may indicate this.
Blaming the current state of US patent law on local conditions in Eastern Texas is probably not very reasonable.
Woke up today, and decided like you'd like to display your cluelessness?
This is exactly right. Nothing to see here.