Apple's iCloud and iTunes targeted in patent infringement suit

Posted:
in iCloud edited May 23
An Irish business, Data Scape Limited, has launched a Texas lawsuit against Apple accusing it of violating a data sync patent by way of iCloud, iTunes and the devices those services run on.

iTunes


In question is U.S. Patent No. 10,277,675, "Communication System And Its Method and Communication Apparatus And Its Method," Data Scape said in its complaint, filed by lawyers for Russ August & Kabat. The patent was only officially granted on Apr. 30 this year.

Apple's devices and services violate the patent's claim on "a communication system including a first apparatus having a first hardware storage medium, and a second [storage] apparatus," the complaint says, the two apparatuses being supported by processors and Wi-Fi or cellular links.

Data Scape is pursuing a jury trial, and asking for legal expenses, damages with interest and a permanent injunction against further infringement.

Similar actions are ongoing against at least 14 other companies, among them Amazon, Dropbox, Fujitsu, Pandora, SAP, Spotify, and Western Digital.

Apple is regularly peppered by small-scale patent lawsuits, most of which fail. Given its track record, Apple will likely try to have the Data Scape patent rendered invalid and the case dismissed, though it could also settle out of court to avoid a long and expensive battle.

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 9
    DAalsethDAalseth Posts: 770member
    ALL OF THE SYSTEMS THEY ARE SUING OVER EXISTED BEFORE THE PATENT WAS GRANTED! Are the Three Stooges working at the Copyright and Patent Office? Either this has no relation to what they are suing over or the patent should never have been granted. Period. Either way this suit is going nowhere.
    vukasika
  • Reply 2 of 9
    doctwelvedoctwelve Posts: 56member
    I'm glad to hear this. Hope they win. Then I can file against Apple for infringing on my patent of a square box with buttons that you press to make something happen. 
    vukasikaDAalsethstompychasmLordeHawkflyingdp
  • Reply 3 of 9
    macxpressmacxpress Posts: 5,001member
    Let me guess....specifically, the case was filed in the Eastern District of Texas. 
    edited May 20
  • Reply 4 of 9
    chasmchasm Posts: 1,706member
    Where ya been for the last 18 years, Data Scrape?
  • Reply 5 of 9
    JFC_PAJFC_PA Posts: 363member
    Prior art: two cans connected by a string. 
    JWSCflyingdpols
  • Reply 6 of 9
    carnegiecarnegie Posts: 736member
    DAalseth said:
    ALL OF THE SYSTEMS THEY ARE SUING OVER EXISTED BEFORE THE PATENT WAS GRANTED! Are the Three Stooges working at the Copyright and Patent Office? Either this has no relation to what they are suing over or the patent should never have been granted. Period. Either way this suit is going nowhere.
    This patent application was a continuation of prior applications. It claims priority going back to 1999. With it being a continuation the specification, in theory, doesn't disclose anything that wasn't in the original application. (There are a number of in-between applications, each continuing from the prior ones.) If anything new is disclosed in the specification for the most recent patent application, then claims based on that new material only get priority based on the new application's date. But based on a skim of this newer application it doesn't appear to be a partial continuation application - i.e., it doesn't appear to disclose new material, so its claims would get priority based on the original application's filing date.

    These are really Sony patents, by the way. Data Scape appears to have acquired them last year.
  • Reply 7 of 9
    carnegiecarnegie Posts: 736member

    macxpress said:
    Let me guess....specifically, the case was filed in the Eastern District of Texas. 
    It was filed in the Western District of Texas. Data Scape also filed suit against Apple (and others) late last year in the Central District of California.
    edited May 20
  • Reply 8 of 9
    22july201322july2013 Posts: 837member
    Using the courts to resolve patents is perfectly normal and it's how the patent system works. In fact under patent rules if you don't sue infringers then the infringers gain the right to use your patent without payment. I'm not sure I like that but I'm not smart enough to come up with a whole new better system.
  • Reply 9 of 9
    Rayz2016Rayz2016 Posts: 4,790member
    Using the courts to resolve patents is perfectly normal and it's how the patent system works. In fact under patent rules if you don't sue infringers then the infringers gain the right to use your patent without payment. I'm not sure I like that but I'm not smart enough to come up with a whole new better system.
    We don’t have this crap clogging up the legal system in the UK because the losing side has to pay the other side’s legal costs. 
    DAalseth
Sign In or Register to comment.