Apple's chips targeted in a new patent infringement suit
Apple has become the target of another lawsuit from a company exhibiting patent troll-like behavior, with Sonrai Memory alleging Apple infringed a pair of patents has acquired.
Filed at the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas on July 15, the lawsuit by Sonrai Memory Limited against Apple accuses the Cupertino tech giant of infringing on two patents in its possession.
One patent, 6,874,014, is titled "Chip multiprocessor with multiple operating systems, dating back to 2005. The other, 6,724,241, is called a "Variable charge pump circuit with dynamic load," first granted in 2004.
According to the filing, spotted by Patently Apple, the infringements involve a long list of Apple products, going as far back as the iPhone 6 and iPhone 6 Plus, the fifth-generation iPad, all iPad Pro generations, and various MacBook Air and MacBook Pro models.
Apple infringes the 014 patent with technology used in the A-series, M-series, and T-series chipsets, the filing claims. Meanwhile, the 241 involve the SK Hynix NAND Flash die, a chip used for handling storage.
The filing demands damages, costs, expenses, interest, a judgment for ongoing licensing fees, and "reasonable attorneys' fees." A trial by jury is also requested.
Apple is regularly the target for patent-related lawsuits, and in some cases, the suits are made by non-practicing entities (NPEs), which are also known by the term "patent trolls."
In the case of Sonrai Memory, it seems to be exhibiting many behaviors that make it seem like it is an NPE. The company isn't known for making actual products or offering services, outside of lawsuits, but did acquire the patents in the suit from Hewlett-Packard and semiconductor company Atmel.
Sonrai Memory has also filed similar patent infringement suits against Western Digital, Google, Samsung, LG, Lenovo, and others since July 2021.
It also seems that the registration of the company itself is very NPE-like in nature. According to the Irish Times, Sonrai Memory Limited and several NPEs share the same address in Dublin, as well as directors, with the firms all holding patents for technologies and have been involved in litigation.
Read on AppleInsider
Filed at the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas on July 15, the lawsuit by Sonrai Memory Limited against Apple accuses the Cupertino tech giant of infringing on two patents in its possession.
One patent, 6,874,014, is titled "Chip multiprocessor with multiple operating systems, dating back to 2005. The other, 6,724,241, is called a "Variable charge pump circuit with dynamic load," first granted in 2004.
According to the filing, spotted by Patently Apple, the infringements involve a long list of Apple products, going as far back as the iPhone 6 and iPhone 6 Plus, the fifth-generation iPad, all iPad Pro generations, and various MacBook Air and MacBook Pro models.
Apple infringes the 014 patent with technology used in the A-series, M-series, and T-series chipsets, the filing claims. Meanwhile, the 241 involve the SK Hynix NAND Flash die, a chip used for handling storage.
The filing demands damages, costs, expenses, interest, a judgment for ongoing licensing fees, and "reasonable attorneys' fees." A trial by jury is also requested.
Apple is regularly the target for patent-related lawsuits, and in some cases, the suits are made by non-practicing entities (NPEs), which are also known by the term "patent trolls."
In the case of Sonrai Memory, it seems to be exhibiting many behaviors that make it seem like it is an NPE. The company isn't known for making actual products or offering services, outside of lawsuits, but did acquire the patents in the suit from Hewlett-Packard and semiconductor company Atmel.
Sonrai Memory has also filed similar patent infringement suits against Western Digital, Google, Samsung, LG, Lenovo, and others since July 2021.
It also seems that the registration of the company itself is very NPE-like in nature. According to the Irish Times, Sonrai Memory Limited and several NPEs share the same address in Dublin, as well as directors, with the firms all holding patents for technologies and have been involved in litigation.
Read on AppleInsider
Comments
When Apple bought 17,000 patents from Intel two years ago, AppleInsider didn't call Apple a "troll" but rather suggested it was smart of Apple to purchase them.
https://appleinsider.com/articles/19/07/25/apple-buys-intel-4g-and-5g-modem-patent-portfolio-for-1-billion <--
By saying, as you do, Appelsauce007, that only companies big enough to manufacture their patents are legitimate patent holders, you are undermining one of the great benefits of the patent system. Under your logic, if you bequeathed a patent to your child upon your death, your child would become "a patent troll" because they didn't produce their own goods or services based on the patent they inherited form you. That's wrong. I celebrate the fact that people can hold patents without being manufacturers, whereas you deride it.
Your points are valid, but let's test your actual position.
Do you support Apple hanging onto Lightning, or would you prefer that they fully move all of their products to USB-C?
I fail to see how the patent system "encourages" innovation when it clearly can be used to block the sale of products that supposedly use certain patents. Tons and tons of money is lost just battling patents when that same money and energy could be used moving the world forward. So yes, I agree that companies that hold patents solely to profit from them alone are trolls. They are not contributing to the world in any way.
Note, patent trolls are not the same as the inventors of those patents. The inventors are contributing to the world. Patent trolls are just trying to profit from the inventors' hard work.
In your closing paragraph you said that inventors themselves are not trolls. That's great, but you failed to answer my question above which was: what happens when an inventor bequeaths his patent to an heir? Does the heir become a patent troll? After all, the heir didn't invent anything. Or what happens if the inventor willingly sells his patent to a non-manufacturing entity? Does the new owner of the patent become a "patent troll"? Basically you and Applesauce007 are saying that anyone who isn't the original inventor or a big manufacturer is automatically a "patent troll." Is it immoral for a legitimate inventor to sell his patent to some company that you call a "patent troll company"? There are so many questions like this - do you have any answers? How exactly would you stop "legitimate patent owners" from selling their patents to companies that you deem to be "patent troll companies"? Who is going to be the judge of which owners are legitimate buyers of patents and which ones are not?
If I purchase a copyright from some author, does that make me a "copyright troll"? Or if I purchase a trademark from the creator of the trademark, am I a "trademark troll"? Why can't I own something and retain the world's respect without being the original property creator?
As for your question about Lightning vs USB-C, I don't see any connection to these patent issues. And the truth is that I don't care what Apple does with its Lightning connectors, as long as all patents are honoured and paid for when used. What do you want me to say about Lightning vs USB-C? The only position that I have is that patents and copyrights and trademarks should all be "property," just like any other property that anyone can own. You can buy them from, or sell them to, anyone you want. Patents are no different from cars, homes or jewelry. Anyone can own them. And anyone can sell them to whomever they want.
When you said "I fail to see how the patent system "encourages" innovation when it clearly can be used to block the sale of products that supposedly use certain patents" I don't even know where to begin. The company that you call the "patent troll" is trying to get paid for patent that it owns, and is using the threat of "blocking sales" to force the patent violator to get paid. Surely you aren't suggesting that Apple shouldn't be required to pay up for patents that it's using without paying for them. The courts are the final arbiter for determining patent violations... do you have any problem with that? What exactly is wrong with the patent system in your opinion? In my opinion it is working exactly as intended and it's a fine system. I'm a very happy person with the current state of patent law... what changes to the law do you want to see?
"Sonrai Memory Limited was set up on Thursday the 22nd of August 2019. Their current partial address is Dublin, and the company status is Normal. The company's current directors have been the director of 486 other Irish companies between them; 113 of which are now closed. Sonrai Memory Limited has 4 shareholders."
Principal Activity: Other Information Technology and Computer Service Activities
Mr Padian is a Company Director of Sonraí Memory Limited since 2019 and a listed Director of 23 other companies.
https://www.solocheck.ie/Irish-Company/Sonrai-Memory-Limited-655575
https://www.vision-net.ie/Company-Info/Sonrai-Memory-Limited-655575
web search: Sonraí Memory Limited has expanded its first litigation campaign, launched in February 2021 over patents received from either Microchip Technology or HP Enterprise (HPE), with a suit against Lenovo ( Motorola Mobility) ( 6:22-cv-00029) in the Western District of Texas.
When I see this documented information about this "company" I see a typical non-practicing entity. This group of people simply buy up, in this case, patents and pursue legal activity against real companies who make and sell physical products. Apple is just one company in a long line of companies this NPE is going after.
I look at people who feel this type of company is valid as someone who only cares about making money, no matter how they do it. If this company had even one employee who actually designed something similar to these patents (other than a technique of suing other companies) I could see a valid reason for this lawsuit. This isn't the case. This company bought up patents developed by real companies involved in the technology these patents were created for and are simply using processes not disallowed by the USPTO or US law. Apple, on the other hand, bought patents from Intel, that Intel weren't using anymore, to protect themselves from NPE (and patent trolls) and to help them develop their own cellular products for potential and future use. Sonrai will never actually produce any products and has no desire to do so. They are simply grabbing patents to stifle production, forcing companies that could use these patents to pay them, supporting their bogus company.
https://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.htm
Here's what the first patent says:
A multiprocessing system comprising: multiple processors mounted on a single die; and multiple operating systems residing in a memory connected to said multiple processors, wherein each of said multiple processors executes an operating system of said multiple operating systems, and two or more of said multiple processors are capable of simultaneously executing two or more operating systems of said multiple operating systems.
Every single computer does this and has done this practically since computers were developed. This patent was developed in the Silicon Valley of CA. HP was and is a computer company but I have to wonder why they sold this particular patent when it could be a part of every other patent HP ever created. Patents almost always refer to other patents so I have to wonder if HP felt this patent was out of date and no longer viable in any product, being superseded by other patents.
edit: One more thing. Apple has been making computerized devices since the 1980s and if HP had thought Apple was infringing on this patent HP would have sued Apple. If they did, Apple would have changed how they designed computers to not infringe this patent and Sonrai would have no reason to sue Apple.
Your first post. Would you mind telling us what your old name was? If this is actually the first time you've visited AI, welcome.
Lets not forget Apple chips are ARM based. I would think ARM would have a lot to say about this.
I've grappled with the dichotomy presented by the need to protect intellectual property versus the scourge that the non-practicing entity lawsuits represent.
Perhaps the answer is to limit the royalties that can be demanded from patents that are not being applied (non-practicing) versus those that are applied in some product or service. This would give greater protection and rewards to those who own patents and are using the patented technology in their products, because damage from infringement is higher versus damage to a non-practicing patent holder. If you've gone through the expense of utilizing a patented process or mechanism, then you should be compensated greater when someone infringes that patent. But if you haven't, and therefore also haven't brought a new product or service to market that allows society to benefit from the invention, then perhaps you shouldn't receive the same compensation for infringement.
There's perhaps a bit of precedent here in the FRAND royalty calculations for patents that are considered standards essential. The whole notion of SEP is that there's a greater good to society to allow multiple parties to utilize an invention as part of a standard and therefore it should be affordable for all to utilize the patented invention. Same here. Patented inventions that are sat upon don't benefit society, so there should be incentive to get those inventions into use.
To give time for a new patent holder to develop products and services around a patented invention, perhaps the first few years after the patent is granted, it can be exempt from the rules I'm suggesting here. The current status quo would remain in effect. But after, say, three years, if you haven't shown that the patent is being developed into a product or service, then licensing limitations go into effect so that the amount you may charge for your invention will be limited, ala FRAND-type pricing guidelines. So, if you don't intend to utilize a patented invention, either accept the lower royalty rates so that others can utilize it, or sell the patent to a company that will utilize it and therefore retain full royalty and infringement power over it.
How about people who hold and own copyrights for books or music when they aren't aren't the original compose of the work. Do you want them to be compensated "less" because they didn't write the material? That's the same idea as making patent holders receive less money if they aren't the original creator or a manufacturer.
I just don't like it when people say that the free market isn't good enough, and that someone (never identified by the arguers) should be determining what everything is "worth."
And you said "the way I phrased Apples' purchase 'as merely a patent purchase' ". I said no such thing. Stop putting words in my mouth to support your ideas.
You said, "Considering this acquisition was to improve their own efforts to actually design and produce their own modems". How do you know that Apple isn't collecting money from these new patents from other companies products? Do you actually know that Apple isn't charging anyone, or are you just making up facts to suit your claims? Apple doesn't have any modems yet, and nobody knows for sure if they will, and yet you really believe Apple won't collect money from other companies for using its patents that it bought from Intel? By the definitions most people are giving today, if Apple doesn't make a modem, then Apple would be a "patent troll" if it tried to collect money from the patents it bought from Intel.