Apple slapped with massive 16-patent lawsuit from wireless tech firm Seven Networks

Posted:
in General Discussion edited April 11
Seven Networks, an active mobile technology company based out of Texas and Finland, on Wednesday leveled a lawsuit against Apple claiming infringement of 16 owned patents asserted against a range of critical software and hardware features.




Filed with the Eastern District Court of Texas, Seven's suit asserts multiple Apple technologies are in violation of owned intellectual property. From Apple's Push Notification Service to automatic App Store downloads, background refresh and iPhone's "Low Battery" warning, the legal action covers a suite of current iOS and macOS features, as well as the devices that run those operating systems.

Specifically, Seven asserts U.S. Patent Nos. 9,369,539 , 9,438,550, 9,473,914, 9,516,127, 9,603,056, 9,608,968, 9,648,557, 9,712,476, 9,712,986, 9,769,176, 10,027,619, 10,039,029, 10,091,734, 10,110,534, 10,135,771 and 10,243,962.

Notably, Seven appears to have developed all but one patent-in-suit, many of which list co-founder and former CTO Trevor Fiatal or current CTO Ari Backhom as an inventor. The lone IP not initially credited to Seven, the '557 patent, was filed by SNRLabs, a wireless technology company acquired by the plaintiff in 2013.

Detailed in the nearly 200-page filing, Seven's grievances are vast and varied.

Starting with the '539 patent for a "Method and device for power saving for downloading files," the firm asserts Apple's "Low Battery" warning and option to switch to "Low Power Mode" in iOS infringes on a claim that describes a method of entering a power save mode by "optimizing traffic at the mobile device by blocking transmission of at least some traffic from the mobile device." The patent also covers a technique by which automated downloads are directed to a device not in low power mode. Seven adds background refresh into the mix with the '734 patent.

Similar allegations are lobbed in regard to the '550 patent for "Mobile device power management in data synchronization over a mobile network with or without a trigger notification," which is aimed at mail fetch capabilities in iOS. The '914 patent, titled "System and method for providing a network service in a distributed fashion to a mobile device," also overlaps the '539 patent in detailing a system for automated software downloads and updates. Fetch and background refresh services are also covered by the '029 patent for "Predictive fetching of mobile application traffic," Seven argues.

Seven's '127 and '056 patents include claims detailing methods of selectively refreshing applications in the background, including batched data and push notification triggers. Similarly, the '968 patent deals with APN security and system architecture, with Seven aiming the IP at iCloud syncing services. The '176 and '962 patents reference general APN backends and token technology.

Apple's Wi-Fi Assist feature, which augments weak Wi-Fi signals with cellular bandwidth, is the target of Seven's '968 patent for "Connection architecture for a mobile network." Wi-Fi Assist was previously at issue in multiple class-action lawsuits in 2015 that claimed the function was not fully explained to consumers and as such cost unwitting users exorbitant carrier fees.

User authentication systems are also in play, as Seven claims Apple's token-based scheme infringes on the '557 patent for "System, method, and computer-readable medium for user equipment decision-making criteria for connectivity and handover." This particular IP was developed by SNRLabs. Seven's '986 patent also deals with user identification.

Handoff and Universal Clipboard allegedly infringe on Seven's '476 patent for "Secure end-to-end transport through intermediary nodes," while Apple Watch's "particle cloud" pairing tech and built-in ability to read messages are subjects of claims pertaining to the '619 patent for "Messaging centre for forwarding e-mail."

Seven contends its '534 patent for "Connection architecture for a mobile network" is violated by Apple's Find My Friends and Find My iPhone, two apps that are also alleged to infringe on the '771 patent for "Secure end-to-end transport through intermediary nodes." Apple infringes on the latter patent by allowing users to send communications through the Find My Friends and Find My iPhone, Seven says.

Among the hardware attached to Seven's claims are iPhone 4s through iPhone XS Max, all iPad models, all modern Mac models, Apple Watch and Apple servers.

Seven is perhaps best known for Open Channel, a suite of tools used by wireless carriers to manage and optimize traffic, including push notifications. The company has been relatively quiet over the past few years, though it does maintain AdClear Plus, a free ad blocking utility for iOS released in 2016 and last updated in March 2018.

Seven established an office in Texas in 2015 with plans to hire a handful of engineers to develop software solutions, reports the Marshall News Messenger. The report did not mention that the company's presence allows it free rein to launch patent lawsuits in a district historically friendly to IP holders.

The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages, licensing fees, reimbursement of legal fees and other relief deemed fit by the court.

«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 24
    I think Seven Networks will someday become Zero Networks because the patents are very obvious and most likely had prior art.
    SpamSandwichchasmolsjbdragonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 2 of 24
    Sounds like our patent system is guilty until proven innocent.

    I don’t see how someone could determine if a company infringed unless they had access to Apple’s source code... which they obviously don’t have.

    Have they sued anyone else and won?
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 3 of 24
    Sounds like our patent system is guilty until proven innocent.

    I don’t see how someone could determine if a company infringed unless they had access to Apple’s source code... which they obviously don’t have.

    Have they sued anyone else and won?
    What about filing suit and demanding access to said source code in Discovery then?
    That seems to be how a number of cases are being played out. Sometimes you can let a 3rd party access the sources and report to the court about infringement but it seems that more and more these cases are relying on getting full access to sources and then walking off into the sunset with all that IP and to hell with laws. Just my opinion though.
  • Reply 4 of 24
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 30,836member
    I think Seven Networks will someday become Zero Networks because the patents are very obvious and most likely had prior art.
    That was my first thought also.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 5 of 24
    chasmchasm Posts: 1,263member
    a. Filed in the Eastern District of Texas. If that's not a tipoff that this is a troll action, you haven't been paying attention.

    b. And they waited until 2019 to file a lawsuit regarding a "low battery" warning that has been on iOS devices from day one? That's not suspicious lol

    c. As noted above, most of these probably have prior art or other problems that will get them invalidated. Seven Networks is pretty obviously hoping for a settlement.

    d. Man I hate to break it to Seven Networks, but Android has pretty much every one of these features and ... oh, you only want to sue the company with the deep pockets? All righty then!
    fotoformatMacProhmurchisonjbdragondamn_its_hotdysamorialoquiturwatto_cobra
  • Reply 6 of 24
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,278member
    chasm said:
    ...As noted above, most of these probably have prior art or other problems that will get them invalidated. Seven Networks is pretty obviously hoping for a settlement.

    d. Man I hate to break it to Seven Networks, but Android has pretty much every one of these features and ... oh, you only want to sue the company with the deep pockets? All righty then!
    Hate to break it to YOU but really, couldn't you spend just 5 minutes looking into it before making assumptive comments? You're not the only one, there's several others confident in what they're posting. Many posters are too quick to assume stuff. Slow down and take a few minutes to check stuff out before putting it in writing.

    I'll fill in some of the blanks.

    Long before Apple Seven Networks had already sued Google, the company infamous for challenging patent validity and exceedingly successful at it. Yet Google agreed to a license with Seven Networks in January, apparently fairly confident at least some of patents would survive challenge and settling was the best course. Apple is next up. Personally I'd put my money on Apple settling rather than going to trial.

    Be sure to read the link below too. This was a very different way of handling the case and perhaps setting a precedent on high profile and highly involved patent cases in that district.
    https://www.marshallnewsmessenger.com/news/seven-networks-google-settle-patent-infringement-case/article_a9980990-1e9d-11e9-8459-9fb887ce315c.html

    The case against Google would have been a biggie, ongoing since 2017.  Google attempted patent claims invalidation without much success, asked for a move of venue to California where they're based but was denied. Appealed to the Federal circuit and denied again because they have servers in Texas (!).

    Seven seems to have a strong case. Google demanded a jury trial rather than bench, even in the patent friendly Eastern District. Seven didn't flinch. Google filed motions to dismiss on a number of different grounds. All dismissed. Change of venue. Dismissed. Appeal. Dismissed. Challenged patent claims. Ruled in favor os Seven. Challenged the terms in the claims, and the claim construction. Ruled in Seven's favor. 

    Finally in the two weeks preceding the trial Google petitioned the Federal Circuit for an en banc hearing. Denied again. Google waited until the eve of the trial to settle with them, apparently out of options and believing they would likely be found guilty of infringement if it went to trial.
     https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6257171/seven-networks-llc-v-google-llc/

    This is NOT the typical patent troll filing. 
    edited April 11 electrosoftctt_zhjbdragonwlymrandominternetpersondysamoria
  • Reply 7 of 24
    carnegiecarnegie Posts: 664member
    I think Seven Networks will someday become Zero Networks because the patents are very obvious and most likely had prior art.

    Have you read all of them?

    I mean, have you read the actual claims rather than just the titles or even the abstracts? Without having read the claims, I don't see how you could make a meaningful assessment of the claimed inventions' novelty or obviousness.
    randominternetperson
  • Reply 8 of 24
    MacProMacPro Posts: 18,141member
    gatorguy said:
    chasm said:
    ...As noted above, most of these probably have prior art or other problems that will get them invalidated. Seven Networks is pretty obviously hoping for a settlement.

    d. Man I hate to break it to Seven Networks, but Android has pretty much every one of these features and ... oh, you only want to sue the company with the deep pockets? All righty then!
    Hate to break it to YOU but really, couldn't you spend just 5 minutes looking into it before making assumptive comments? You're not the only one, there's several others confident in what they're posting. Many posters are too quick to assume stuff. Slow down and take a few minutes to check stuff out before putting it in writing.

    I'll fill in some of the blanks.

    Long before Apple Seven Networks had already sued Google, the company infamous for challenging patent validity and exceedingly successful at it. Yet Google agreed to a license with Seven Networks in January, apparently fairly confident at least some of patents would survive challenge and settling was the best course. Apple is next up. Personally I'd put my money on Apple settling rather than going to trial.

    Be sure to read the link below too. This was a very different way of handling the case and perhaps setting a precedent on high profile and highly involved patent cases in that district.
    https://www.marshallnewsmessenger.com/news/seven-networks-google-settle-patent-infringement-case/article_a9980990-1e9d-11e9-8459-9fb887ce315c.html

    The case against Google would have been a biggie, ongoing since 2017.  Google attempted patent claims invalidation without much success, asked for a move of venue to California where they're based but was denied. Appealed to the Federal circuit and denied again because they have servers in Texas (!).

    Seven seems to have a strong case. Google demanded a jury trial rather than bench, even in the patent friendly Eastern District. Seven didn't flinch. Google filed motions to dismiss on a number of different grounds. All dismissed. Change of venue. Dismissed. Appeal. Dismissed. Challenged patent claims. Ruled in favor os Seven. Challenged the terms in the claims, and the claim construction. Ruled in Seven's favor. 

    Finally in the two weeks preceding the trial Google petitioned the Federal Circuit for an en banc hearing. Denied again. Google waited until the eve of the trial to settle with them, apparently out of options and believing they would likely be found guilty of infringement if it went to trial.
     https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6257171/seven-networks-llc-v-google-llc/

    This is NOT the typical patent troll filing. 
    Great heads up for Apple from Google.  Thanks.
    jmc54watto_cobra
  • Reply 9 of 24
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,278member
    MacPro said:
    gatorguy said:
    chasm said:
    ...As noted above, most of these probably have prior art or other problems that will get them invalidated. Seven Networks is pretty obviously hoping for a settlement.

    d. Man I hate to break it to Seven Networks, but Android has pretty much every one of these features and ... oh, you only want to sue the company with the deep pockets? All righty then!
    Hate to break it to YOU but really, couldn't you spend just 5 minutes looking into it before making assumptive comments? You're not the only one, there's several others confident in what they're posting. Many posters are too quick to assume stuff. Slow down and take a few minutes to check stuff out before putting it in writing.

    I'll fill in some of the blanks.

    Long before Apple Seven Networks had already sued Google, the company infamous for challenging patent validity and exceedingly successful at it. Yet Google agreed to a license with Seven Networks in January, apparently fairly confident at least some of patents would survive challenge and settling was the best course. Apple is next up. Personally I'd put my money on Apple settling rather than going to trial.

    Be sure to read the link below too. This was a very different way of handling the case and perhaps setting a precedent on high profile and highly involved patent cases in that district.
    https://www.marshallnewsmessenger.com/news/seven-networks-google-settle-patent-infringement-case/article_a9980990-1e9d-11e9-8459-9fb887ce315c.html

    The case against Google would have been a biggie, ongoing since 2017.  Google attempted patent claims invalidation without much success, asked for a move of venue to California where they're based but was denied. Appealed to the Federal circuit and denied again because they have servers in Texas (!).

    Seven seems to have a strong case. Google demanded a jury trial rather than bench, even in the patent friendly Eastern District. Seven didn't flinch. Google filed motions to dismiss on a number of different grounds. All dismissed. Change of venue. Dismissed. Appeal. Dismissed. Challenged patent claims. Ruled in favor os Seven. Challenged the terms in the claims, and the claim construction. Ruled in Seven's favor. 

    Finally in the two weeks preceding the trial Google petitioned the Federal Circuit for an en banc hearing. Denied again. Google waited until the eve of the trial to settle with them, apparently out of options and believing they would likely be found guilty of infringement if it went to trial.
     https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6257171/seven-networks-llc-v-google-llc/

    This is NOT the typical patent troll filing. 
    Great heads up for Apple from Google.  Thanks.
    No doubt Apple had their eye on this case months ago and was rooting hard for Google. 
    jbdragonrandominternetperson
  • Reply 10 of 24
    MacProMacPro Posts: 18,141member
    gatorguy said:
    MacPro said:
    gatorguy said:
    chasm said:
    ...As noted above, most of these probably have prior art or other problems that will get them invalidated. Seven Networks is pretty obviously hoping for a settlement.

    d. Man I hate to break it to Seven Networks, but Android has pretty much every one of these features and ... oh, you only want to sue the company with the deep pockets? All righty then!
    Hate to break it to YOU but really, couldn't you spend just 5 minutes looking into it before making assumptive comments? You're not the only one, there's several others confident in what they're posting. Many posters are too quick to assume stuff. Slow down and take a few minutes to check stuff out before putting it in writing.

    I'll fill in some of the blanks.

    Long before Apple Seven Networks had already sued Google, the company infamous for challenging patent validity and exceedingly successful at it. Yet Google agreed to a license with Seven Networks in January, apparently fairly confident at least some of patents would survive challenge and settling was the best course. Apple is next up. Personally I'd put my money on Apple settling rather than going to trial.

    Be sure to read the link below too. This was a very different way of handling the case and perhaps setting a precedent on high profile and highly involved patent cases in that district.
    https://www.marshallnewsmessenger.com/news/seven-networks-google-settle-patent-infringement-case/article_a9980990-1e9d-11e9-8459-9fb887ce315c.html

    The case against Google would have been a biggie, ongoing since 2017.  Google attempted patent claims invalidation without much success, asked for a move of venue to California where they're based but was denied. Appealed to the Federal circuit and denied again because they have servers in Texas (!).

    Seven seems to have a strong case. Google demanded a jury trial rather than bench, even in the patent friendly Eastern District. Seven didn't flinch. Google filed motions to dismiss on a number of different grounds. All dismissed. Change of venue. Dismissed. Appeal. Dismissed. Challenged patent claims. Ruled in favor os Seven. Challenged the terms in the claims, and the claim construction. Ruled in Seven's favor. 

    Finally in the two weeks preceding the trial Google petitioned the Federal Circuit for an en banc hearing. Denied again. Google waited until the eve of the trial to settle with them, apparently out of options and believing they would likely be found guilty of infringement if it went to trial.
     https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6257171/seven-networks-llc-v-google-llc/

    This is NOT the typical patent troll filing. 
    Great heads up for Apple from Google.  Thanks.
    No doubt Apple had their eye on this case months ago and was rooting hard for Google. 
    Can you mention anything about the settlement or is this still being decided?
  • Reply 11 of 24
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,278member
    MacPro said:
    gatorguy said:
    MacPro said:
    gatorguy said:
    chasm said:
    ...As noted above, most of these probably have prior art or other problems that will get them invalidated. Seven Networks is pretty obviously hoping for a settlement.

    d. Man I hate to break it to Seven Networks, but Android has pretty much every one of these features and ... oh, you only want to sue the company with the deep pockets? All righty then!
    Hate to break it to YOU but really, couldn't you spend just 5 minutes looking into it before making assumptive comments? You're not the only one, there's several others confident in what they're posting. Many posters are too quick to assume stuff. Slow down and take a few minutes to check stuff out before putting it in writing.

    I'll fill in some of the blanks.

    Long before Apple Seven Networks had already sued Google, the company infamous for challenging patent validity and exceedingly successful at it. Yet Google agreed to a license with Seven Networks in January, apparently fairly confident at least some of patents would survive challenge and settling was the best course. Apple is next up. Personally I'd put my money on Apple settling rather than going to trial.

    Be sure to read the link below too. This was a very different way of handling the case and perhaps setting a precedent on high profile and highly involved patent cases in that district.
    https://www.marshallnewsmessenger.com/news/seven-networks-google-settle-patent-infringement-case/article_a9980990-1e9d-11e9-8459-9fb887ce315c.html

    The case against Google would have been a biggie, ongoing since 2017.  Google attempted patent claims invalidation without much success, asked for a move of venue to California where they're based but was denied. Appealed to the Federal circuit and denied again because they have servers in Texas (!).

    Seven seems to have a strong case. Google demanded a jury trial rather than bench, even in the patent friendly Eastern District. Seven didn't flinch. Google filed motions to dismiss on a number of different grounds. All dismissed. Change of venue. Dismissed. Appeal. Dismissed. Challenged patent claims. Ruled in favor os Seven. Challenged the terms in the claims, and the claim construction. Ruled in Seven's favor. 

    Finally in the two weeks preceding the trial Google petitioned the Federal Circuit for an en banc hearing. Denied again. Google waited until the eve of the trial to settle with them, apparently out of options and believing they would likely be found guilty of infringement if it went to trial.
     https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6257171/seven-networks-llc-v-google-llc/

    This is NOT the typical patent troll filing. 
    Great heads up for Apple from Google.  Thanks.
    No doubt Apple had their eye on this case months ago and was rooting hard for Google. 
    Can you mention anything about the settlement or is this still being decided?
    ? Did you read the links at all? Those should cover any general questions about the case...
    unless you were actually just trolling again and had no honest question. That was actually funny then. :)
    edited April 11 ctt_zh
  • Reply 12 of 24
    gilly33gilly33 Posts: 237member
    Well it’s in the Eastern District Court so we know how this may end up. Get ready to pay up Apple. 
  • Reply 13 of 24
    carnegiecarnegie Posts: 664member
    gatorguy said:
    chasm said:
    ...As noted above, most of these probably have prior art or other problems that will get them invalidated. Seven Networks is pretty obviously hoping for a settlement.

    d. Man I hate to break it to Seven Networks, but Android has pretty much every one of these features and ... oh, you only want to sue the company with the deep pockets? All righty then!
    Hate to break it to YOU but really, couldn't you spend just 5 minutes looking into it before making assumptive comments? You're not the only one, there's several others confident in what they're posting. Many posters are too quick to assume stuff. Slow down and take a few minutes to check stuff out before putting it in writing.

    I'll fill in some of the blanks.

    Long before Apple Seven Networks had already sued Google, the company infamous for challenging patent validity and exceedingly successful at it. Yet Google agreed to a license with Seven Networks in January, apparently fairly confident at least some of patents would survive challenge and settling was the best course. Apple is next up. Personally I'd put my money on Apple settling rather than going to trial.

    Be sure to read the link below too. This was a very different way of handling the case and perhaps setting a precedent on high profile and highly involved patent cases in that district.
    https://www.marshallnewsmessenger.com/news/seven-networks-google-settle-patent-infringement-case/article_a9980990-1e9d-11e9-8459-9fb887ce315c.html

    The case against Google would have been a biggie, ongoing since 2017.  Google attempted patent claims invalidation without much success, asked for a move of venue to California where they're based but was denied. Appealed to the Federal circuit and denied again because they have servers in Texas (!).

    Seven seems to have a strong case. Google demanded a jury trial rather than bench, even in the patent friendly Eastern District. Seven didn't flinch. Google filed motions to dismiss on a number of different grounds. All dismissed. Change of venue. Dismissed. Appeal. Dismissed. Challenged patent claims. Ruled in favor os Seven. Challenged the terms in the claims, and the claim construction. Ruled in Seven's favor. 

    Finally in the two weeks preceding the trial Google petitioned the Federal Circuit for an en banc hearing. Denied again. Google waited until the eve of the trial to settle with them, apparently out of options and believing they would likely be found guilty of infringement if it went to trial.
     https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6257171/seven-networks-llc-v-google-llc/

    This is NOT the typical patent troll filing. 
    A few things:

    (1) It wasn't just Google that wanted a jury trial in that case. Seven Networks demanded a jury trial from the outset.

    (2) It's not uncommon for a defendant to ask for dismissal on a number of grounds and be denied. That doesn't mean that the plaintiff has a strong case on the merits. Google did ask to have the case moved to the ND of CA where it had filed its own case against Seven Networks (asking for a declaratory judgment that it hadn't infringed). Google probably should have lost on that issue but, again, that doesn't suggest that Seven Networks' merits case was strong.

    (3) Judge Gilstrap didn't rule in Seven Networks' favor with regard to claim construction. His claim construction decisions were a mixed bag. In some regards they favored Google (and agreed with Google's arguments) and in some regards they favored Seven Networks. Sometimes his claim construction was in between what was proposed by the parties. But I don't think it would even be fair to say his decisions, on the whole, heavily favored Seven Networks. It surely isn't accurate to say that he ruled in Seven Networks' favor, unless we're only referring to a specific claim construction. And there were many disputed claim constructions which he had to rule on.

    (4) To be clear, the suit which Seven Networks brought against Google only involved one of the patents which it has asserted against Apple. There were originally 9 patents asserted in its case against Google. Apparently all but 4 of those patents were, at some point, dropped from the case. That could be for a number of reasons. I don't know as I haven't looked through enough court filings to find out (even if some of them gave indication as to why). But it could be because Seven Networks felt its case was weak with regard to some of them (e.g., because it got unfavorable claim constructions).  EDIT: To correct, there were originally 10 patents asserted in the case against Google.

    (5) Google had managed to get IPRs instituted against all of the remaining patents in suit. Institution isn't just a formality. It means that the board thought there was likelihood of success (for Google demonstrating un-patentatibility) on at least one of the challenged claims from each instituted IPR.

    (6) When the parties reached a settlement, they asked the PTAB to terminate the outstanding IPRs. In other words, Google agreed not to pursue its challenges to the validity of the patents which were still at issue in the ED of Texas case. It also agreed to terminate challenges to the validity of other Seven Networks patents.

    (7) So... I wouldn't conclude that the parties resolved their issues on terms which were largely in Seven Networks favor. Perhaps they were, perhaps they weren't. Google may have agreed to pay something, but the amount might have been fairly small - small enough that it was better than taking a chance with a jury trial and having the dispute drag on for a while. The reality that there was a settlement doesn't mean that Seven Networks had a strong case. It also had something to lose by proceeding. Its patents could have been invalidated by the PTAB even if the jury in the ED of TX case found that they were valid. Unless you have some way of knowing the terms of the settlement, we just don't know whether it represented Google folding or Seven Networks folding or them both giving considerable ground. And, at any rate, the strength of Seven Networks' case against Google doesn't tell us much about the strength of its case against Apple. As I indicated, only one of the 16 patents asserted against Apple was involved in the Google case. And that's one of the patents for which Google was able to get an IPR instituted.

    edited April 11 randominternetpersonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 14 of 24
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,215member
    It's interesting to see the wide dynamic range of human accomplishment.    In one week we have the first look at what a Super Massive Black Hole looks like with collaboration between scientists all over the globe and in the same week we have the other end of the spectrum in which a company has a patent on "saving battery by blocking things".  

    I find the euphoria I get from scientific discovery is quickly dashed by the absolute insanity of our patent system in modernity. 
    randominternetpersondysamoriawatto_cobra
  • Reply 15 of 24
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 7,071member
    Sounds like our patent system is guilty until proven innocent.

    I don’t see how someone could determine if a company infringed unless they had access to Apple’s source code... which they obviously don’t have.

    Have they sued anyone else and won?
    Unfortunately our patent system includes abstract software ideas, rather than implementations. The implementation is copyrighted and the only good place for protection — protection of code, not ideas. 

    Our patent system is broken when it comes to software. 
    edited April 11 dysamoriawatto_cobra
  • Reply 16 of 24
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 7,071member
    gatorguy said:
    chasm said:
    ...As noted above, most of these probably have prior art or other problems that will get them invalidated. Seven Networks is pretty obviously hoping for a settlement.

    d. Man I hate to break it to Seven Networks, but Android has pretty much every one of these features and ... oh, you only want to sue the company with the deep pockets? All righty then!
    Hate to break it to YOU but really, couldn't you spend just 5 minutes looking into it before making assumptive comments? You're not the only one, there's several others confident in what they're posting. Many posters are too quick to assume stuff. Slow down and take a few minutes to check stuff out before putting it in writing.

    I'll fill in some of the blanks.

    Long before Apple Seven Networks had already sued Google, the company infamous for challenging patent validity and exceedingly successful at it. Yet Google agreed to a license with Seven Networks in January, apparently fairly confident at least some of patents would survive challenge and settling was the best course. Apple is next up. Personally I'd put my money on Apple settling rather than going to trial.

    Be sure to read the link below too. This was a very different way of handling the case and perhaps setting a precedent on high profile and highly involved patent cases in that district.
    https://www.marshallnewsmessenger.com/news/seven-networks-google-settle-patent-infringement-case/article_a9980990-1e9d-11e9-8459-9fb887ce315c.html

    The case against Google would have been a biggie, ongoing since 2017.  Google attempted patent claims invalidation without much success, asked for a move of venue to California where they're based but was denied. Appealed to the Federal circuit and denied again because they have servers in Texas (!).

    Seven seems to have a strong case. Google demanded a jury trial rather than bench, even in the patent friendly Eastern District. Seven didn't flinch. Google filed motions to dismiss on a number of different grounds. All dismissed. Change of venue. Dismissed. Appeal. Dismissed. Challenged patent claims. Ruled in favor os Seven. Challenged the terms in the claims, and the claim construction. Ruled in Seven's favor. 

    Finally in the two weeks preceding the trial Google petitioned the Federal Circuit for an en banc hearing. Denied again. Google waited until the eve of the trial to settle with them, apparently out of options and believing they would likely be found guilty of infringement if it went to trial.
     https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6257171/seven-networks-llc-v-google-llc/

    This is NOT the typical patent troll filing. 
    The righteousness is strong in this one. Yeah sorry, most of us have better things to do than search the web for litigation involving our employers google. It’s completely fine for people to read the story and comment on it as written. 
    edited April 11 randominternetpersondysamoriawatto_cobra
  • Reply 17 of 24
    jimh2jimh2 Posts: 118member
    All are more than obvious, but they way the system works Seven's shakedown will yield them money.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 18 of 24
    1348513485 Posts: 30member
    The righteousness is strong in this one. Yeah sorry, most of us have better things to do than search the web for litigation involving our employers google. It’s completely fine for people to read the story and comment on it as written. 
    OK, a little harsh, though. When he's right, he's right. I don't really care if he's a Googliac.


    gatorguy
  • Reply 19 of 24
    MplsPMplsP Posts: 1,204member
    chasm said:
    a. Filed in the Eastern District of Texas. If that's not a tipoff that this is a troll action, you haven't been paying attention.

    I'd agree, except it appears Seven is actually a real corporation that developed the patents in question itself and sells actual products - not really the M.O. of a patent troll.
  • Reply 20 of 24
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 30,836member
    carnegie said:
    gatorguy said:
    chasm said:
    ...As noted above, most of these probably have prior art or other problems that will get them invalidated. Seven Networks is pretty obviously hoping for a settlement.

    d. Man I hate to break it to Seven Networks, but Android has pretty much every one of these features and ... oh, you only want to sue the company with the deep pockets? All righty then!
    Hate to break it to YOU but really, couldn't you spend just 5 minutes looking into it before making assumptive comments? You're not the only one, there's several others confident in what they're posting. Many posters are too quick to assume stuff. Slow down and take a few minutes to check stuff out before putting it in writing.

    I'll fill in some of the blanks.

    Long before Apple Seven Networks had already sued Google, the company infamous for challenging patent validity and exceedingly successful at it. Yet Google agreed to a license with Seven Networks in January, apparently fairly confident at least some of patents would survive challenge and settling was the best course. Apple is next up. Personally I'd put my money on Apple settling rather than going to trial.

    Be sure to read the link below too. This was a very different way of handling the case and perhaps setting a precedent on high profile and highly involved patent cases in that district.
    https://www.marshallnewsmessenger.com/news/seven-networks-google-settle-patent-infringement-case/article_a9980990-1e9d-11e9-8459-9fb887ce315c.html

    The case against Google would have been a biggie, ongoing since 2017.  Google attempted patent claims invalidation without much success, asked for a move of venue to California where they're based but was denied. Appealed to the Federal circuit and denied again because they have servers in Texas (!).

    Seven seems to have a strong case. Google demanded a jury trial rather than bench, even in the patent friendly Eastern District. Seven didn't flinch. Google filed motions to dismiss on a number of different grounds. All dismissed. Change of venue. Dismissed. Appeal. Dismissed. Challenged patent claims. Ruled in favor os Seven. Challenged the terms in the claims, and the claim construction. Ruled in Seven's favor. 

    Finally in the two weeks preceding the trial Google petitioned the Federal Circuit for an en banc hearing. Denied again. Google waited until the eve of the trial to settle with them, apparently out of options and believing they would likely be found guilty of infringement if it went to trial.
     https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6257171/seven-networks-llc-v-google-llc/

    This is NOT the typical patent troll filing. 
    A few things:

    (1) It wasn't just Google that wanted a jury trial in that case. Seven Networks demanded a jury trial from the outset.

    (2) It's not uncommon for a defendant to ask for dismissal on a number of grounds and be denied. That doesn't mean that the plaintiff has a strong case on the merits. Google did ask to have the case moved to the ND of CA where it had filed its own case against Seven Networks (asking for a declaratory judgment that it hadn't infringed). Google probably should have lost on that issue but, again, that doesn't suggest that Seven Networks' merits case was strong.

    (3) Judge Gilstrap didn't rule in Seven Networks' favor with regard to claim construction. His claim construction decisions were a mixed bag. In some regards they favored Google (and agreed with Google's arguments) and in some regards they favored Seven Networks. Sometimes his claim construction was in between what was proposed by the parties. But I don't think it would even be fair to say his decisions, on the whole, heavily favored Seven Networks. It surely isn't accurate to say that he ruled in Seven Networks' favor, unless we're only referring to a specific claim construction. And there were many disputed claim constructions which he had to rule on.

    (4) To be clear, the suit which Seven Networks brought against Google only involved one of the patents which it has asserted against Apple. There were originally 9 patents asserted in its case against Google. Apparently all but 4 of those patents were, at some point, dropped from the case. That could be for a number of reasons. I don't know as I haven't looked through enough court filings to find out (even if some of them gave indication as to why). But it could be because Seven Networks felt its case was weak with regard to some of them (e.g., because it got unfavorable claim constructions).  EDIT: To correct, there were originally 10 patents asserted in the case against Google.

    (5) Google had managed to get IPRs instituted against all of the remaining patents in suit. Institution isn't just a formality. It means that the board thought there was likelihood of success (for Google demonstrating un-patentatibility) on at least one of the challenged claims from each instituted IPR.

    (6) When the parties reached a settlement, they asked the PTAB to terminate the outstanding IPRs. In other words, Google agreed not to pursue its challenges to the validity of the patents which were still at issue in the ED of Texas case. It also agreed to terminate challenges to the validity of other Seven Networks patents.

    (7) So... I wouldn't conclude that the parties resolved their issues on terms which were largely in Seven Networks favor. Perhaps they were, perhaps they weren't. Google may have agreed to pay something, but the amount might have been fairly small - small enough that it was better than taking a chance with a jury trial and having the dispute drag on for a while. The reality that there was a settlement doesn't mean that Seven Networks had a strong case. It also had something to lose by proceeding. Its patents could have been invalidated by the PTAB even if the jury in the ED of TX case found that they were valid. Unless you have some way of knowing the terms of the settlement, we just don't know whether it represented Google folding or Seven Networks folding or them both giving considerable ground. And, at any rate, the strength of Seven Networks' case against Google doesn't tell us much about the strength of its case against Apple. As I indicated, only one of the 16 patents asserted against Apple was involved in the Google case. And that's one of the patents for which Google was able to get an IPR instituted.

    Seeking a declaratory judgement is boilerplate, a standard part of any legal ‘contest’.
Sign In or Register to comment.