Jury finds Apple did not induce infringement of video streaming patent

in General Discussion edited July 2014
A federal jury on Friday found Apple did not push app developers to use its proprietary HLS technology for live streaming video to iOS devices, which would have allegedly induced infringement of an Israeli company's patents.

In a verdict handed down by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Apple successfully avoided penalty after being accused of inducing infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,389,473 for live video streaming, which was awarded to embattled audio company Emblaze.

With the '473 patent granted some ten years prior to the introduction of HLS, Emblaze alleged Apple pushed app developers to use the proprietary format, thereby causing them to infringe on the patent. The trial's jury found otherwise, saying ABC News, MLB at Bat, WatchESPN and four other apps did not meet the criteria for infringement.

Emblaze first sued Apple in 2010 over the Cupertino company's proprietary HLS (HTTP Live Streaming) video protocol, which has been used to stream video to iOS devices since iOS 3. As described by Apple, HLS works by slicing live video into segments, converts them into downloadable files and makes them available to client devices. The files can then be downloaded in dynamically variable bitrates depending on network conditions.

According to in-court reports from Bloomberg, Apple attorney Mark Fowler argued that Emblaze was simply targeting Apple after failing to find success in the audio hardware market. The Israeli company tried to sell off its intellectual property to other businesses, including telecoms and other tech firms, but was rebuffed in their attempts.

Emblaze will next take on Microsoft over the same patent, claiming Windows 7 is in infringement of the video streaming property.


  • Reply 1 of 9
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,883member
    Going down in Emblaze of glory!
  • Reply 2 of 9
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,408member
  • Reply 3 of 9
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,426member
    They actually brought this case in norther CA? What were they thinking? Hadn't they heard of the 'pay us to win' courts in eastern TX?
  • Reply 4 of 9
    tommikeletommikele Posts: 533member
    Another failed extortion attempt directed at Apple.
  • Reply 5 of 9
    adamwadamw Posts: 114guest
    A win for video streaming.
  • Reply 6 of 9
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member


  • Reply 7 of 9
    609 document docket; I really would love to see the billings from the law firm representing Emblaze, That has to be one hell of a bill. Oh and it looks like they originally filed in the NYSD and Apple transferred it to CAND; another questionable choice on the plaintiffs part, but they got what they had coming.

  • Reply 8 of 9
    damn_its_hotdamn_its_hot Posts: 1,193member

    Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

    They actually brought this case in norther CA? What were they thinking? Hadn't they heard of the 'pay us to win' courts in eastern TX?

    It is apparently only a small, undoubtedly inbred, group of richard head judges that knew how to get appointed (actually they say its not who you know, its who you blow) out in the Eastern District of Texas (that have all these sleazebags choosing from 94 courts when they (plaintiff) is from who knows where, that would have you believe it is the most equitable system). I don't think the old geezers even look at the merits -- just who supposedly owns the patent and is more desperate to help em out during there retirement years. I think they are a retirement club of old gas bags ????that needs to be put out to pasture with the rest of the ????. From what I know about the Western District they actually look at the merits of a case so no one is flocking there.


    Why in the hell do the plaintiffs get to file any damn place they want. I think a lottery system or a system that leaned less to the geographic home bases of the plaintiffs. Of course, since these guys just bet on these patents being applicable to something someday. Maybe the defendant should be allowed to choose?


    Excuse my rant, I will now try to go compose myself. ¡

  • Reply 9 of 9
    raj5151raj5151 Posts: 2member

    Very interesting  informative post. Thank you for your useful publishing.



Sign In or Register to comment.