Apple, Samsung sued by ZiiLABS over alleged infringement of graphics patents

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 33
    imt1imt1 Posts: 87member
    If this has merit, Apple should then gobble this up before Samsung does.
  • Reply 22 of 33
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Ogoh_Ogoh View Post

     

    "a subsidiary of A/V solutions giant Creative Technology" .. not "Another patent Holding scum bucket".

     

    They are quite big on windows ! I think Apple had to pay them 100 million US$ already once for the iPod design.


     

    I say "Another patent Holding scum bucket" simply because in the new patent troll laws, a company will not be able to wait until another infringing company expends "sweat" making the technology successful then decide to sue. Thats exactly what ZiiLabs did. Secondly, Eastern District of Texas?? Really?? The whole process just stinks! I want ZiiLabs to get spanked heavily and learn a valuable lesson regarding patent trolling and set a president for all other trolls!

  • Reply 23 of 33
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,508member
    Yup, East Texas is pretty darn popular if you have a patent that needs monetizing. Check out this pretty extensive list of other patent cases filed in East Texas in a single November week. Looks like almost big tech is represented.

    MPHJ Technology Investments et al v. Research Now Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-00962l

    Nov. 20

    • Hilltop Technology v. Wintek Corp. et al Case No. 2:13-cv-00964

    • Hilltop Technology v. TPK Holding Co. Ltd. et al Case No. 2:13-cv-00965

    • Adrain v. Amazon.com Inc. et al Case No. 2:13-cv-00967

    • eDekka v. Amazon.com Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-00968

    • eDekka v. Apple Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-00969

    • eDekka v. BestBuy Case No. 2:13-cv-00970

    • eDekka v. BlackBerry Corp. et al Case No. 2:13-cv-00971

    • eDekka v. CDW Corp. Case No. 2:13-cv-00972

    • eDekka v. Costco Wholesale Corp. Case No. 2:13-cv-00973

    • eDekka v. J.C. Penney Corp. Inc. et al Case No. 2:13-cv-00974

    • eDekka v. Liberty Interactive Corp. et al Case No. 2:13-cv-00975

    • eDekka v. Macys.com Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-00976

    • eDekka v. Office Depot Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-00977

    • eDekka v. Pizza Hut Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-00978

    • eDekka v. Sally Beauty Supply Case No. 2:13-cv-00979

    • eDekka v. Samsung Telecommunications America Case No. 2:13-cv-00980

    • eDekka v. Sears Roebuck and Co. et al Case No. 2:13-cv-00981

    • eDekka v. Sony Electronics Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-00982

    • eDekka v. Staples Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-00983

    • eDekka v. Symantec Corp. Case No. 2:13-cv-00984

    • eDekka v. Target Corp. Case No. 2:13-cv-00985

    • eDekka v. The Gap Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-00986

    • eDekka v. W.W. Grainger Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-00987



    Nov. 21

    • Vantage Point Technology Inc. v. Apple Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-00989

    • Vantage Point Technology Inc. v. LSI Corp. Case No. 2:13-cv-00990

    • Vantage Point Technology Inc. v. MediaTek USA Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-00991

    • Vantage Point Technology Inc. v. Panasonic Corp of North America Case No. 2:13-cv-00992

    • Vantage Point Technology Inc. v. Sharp Electronics Corp. Case No. 2:13-cv-00993



    Nov. 22

    • Harvatek Corp. v. Nichia America Corp. et al Case No. 6:13-cv-00901


    Nov. 26

    Long Corner Consumer Electronics v. Acer America Corp. Case No. 2:13-cv-00998

    Long Corner Consumer Electronics v. Amazon.com Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-00999

    • Long Corner Consumer Electronics v. Apple Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-01000

    • Long Corner Consumer Electronics v. ASUS Computer International Case No. 2:13-cv-01001

    • Long Corner Consumer Electronics v. Barnes & Noble Inc. et al Case No. 2:13-cv-01002

    • Long Corner Consumer Electronics v. BlackBerry Corp. Case No. 2:13-cv-01003

    • Long Corner Consumer Electronics v. Coolpad Technologies Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-01004

    • Long Corner Consumer Electronics v. Fuhu Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-01005

    • Long Corner Consumer Electronics v. Fujitsu America Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-01006

    • Long Corner Consumer Electronics v. Huawei Device USA Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-01007

    • Long Corner Consumer Electronics v. HTC America Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-01008

    • Long Corner Consumer Electronics v. Kyocera Communications Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-01009

    • Long Corner Consumer Electronics v. Lenovo (United States) Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-01010

    • Long Corner Consumer Electronics v. LG Electronics U.S.A. Inc. et al Case No. 2:13-cv-01011

    • Long Corner Consumer Electronics v. Panasonic Corp. of North America Case No. 2:13-cv-01012

    • Long Corner Consumer Electronics v. ViewSonic Corp. Case No. 2:13-cv-01013

    • Long Corner Consumer Electronics v. ViewSonic Corp. Case No. 2:13-cv-01014

    • Biscotti Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. Case No. 2:13-cv-01015

    • Pi-Net International Inc. v. Staples Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-01016

    • Pi-Net International Inc. v. Lowe’s Home Centers Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-01017

    • Pi-Net International Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-01018

    • Pi-Net International Inc. v. Office Depot Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-01019

    • Pi-Net International Inc. v. Footlocker.com Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-01020

    • Pi-Net International Inc. v. GameStop Corp. Case No. 2:13-cv-01021

    • Pi-Net International Inc. v. BestBuy.com Case No. 2:13-cv-01022

    • Pi-Net International Inc. v. American Eagle Outfitters Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-01023

    • Pi-Net International Inc. v. Sears Holdings Corp. Case No. 2:13-cv-01024

    • Pi-Net International Inc. v. Chico’s FAS Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-01025

    • Pi-Net International Inc. v. Edible Arrangements International Case No. 2:13-cv-01026

    • Pi-Net International Inc. v. Officemax Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-01027

    • Pi-Net International Inc. v. W.W. Grainger Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-01028

    • Pi-Net International Inc. v. Dillard’s Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-01029

    • Pi-Net International Inc. v. The Finish Line Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-01030

    • Pi-Net International Inc. v. Victoria’s Secret Direct Brand Management Case No. 2:13-cv-01031

    • Pi-Net International Inc. v. The Jones Group Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-01032

    • Pi-Net International Inc. v. Bath & Body Works Brand Management Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-01033

    • Pi-Net International Inc. v. Jos. A. Bank Clothiers Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-01034

    • Pi-Net International Inc. v. J.C. Penney Co. Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-01035

    • Pi-Net International Inc. v. Macys.com Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-01036

    • Pi-Net International Inc. v. Aeropostale Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-01037

    • Pi-Net International Inc. v. Target Corp. Case No. 2:13-cv-01038

    • Pi-Net International Inc. v. PETCO Animal Supplies Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-01039

    • Pi-Net International Inc. v. Kohl’s Department Stores Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-01040

    • Pi-Net International Inc. v. Autozone Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-01041

    • Pi-Net International Inc. v. Toys “R” US-Delaware Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-01042

    • Pi-Net International Inc. v. CVS Caremark Corp. Case No. 2:13-cv-01043

    • Pi-Net International Inc. v. Walgreen Co. Case No. 2:13-cv-01044

    • Pi-Net International Inc. v. Home Depot U.S.A. Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-01045

    Nov. 27

    • Trover Group Inc. et al v. i3 International Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-01046

    • Trover Group Inc. et al v. Dedicated Micros USA Case No. 2:13-cv-01047


    Nov. 25

    • Uniloc USA Inc. et al v. ABB Ltd. Case No. 6:13-cv-00906

    • Uniloc USA Inc. et al v. Exchangeit B.V. Case No. 6:13-cv-00907

    • Uniloc USA Inc. et al v. IAR Systems Group AB et al Case No. 6:13-cv-00908

    • Uniloc USA Inc. et al v. Merrick & Co. Case No. 6:13-cv-00909

    • Uniloc USA Inc. et al v. Micro Focus International Case No. 6:13-cv-00910

    • Uniloc USA Inc. et al v. Missler Software et al Case No. 6:13-cv-00911

    • Uniloc USA Inc. et al v. PCI Geomatics Group Inc. et al Case No. 6:13-cv-00912

    • Uniloc USA Inc. et al v. Pharsight Corp. Case No. 6:13-cv-00914

    • Uniloc USA Inc. et al v. Sage Group Plc. et al Case No. 6:13-cv-00915

    • Uniloc USA Inc. et al v. Synopsys Inc. Case No. 6:13-cv-00917


    Nov. 27

    • NYC IP Inc. v. Apple Inc. Case No. 6:13-cv-00921

    • Adaptix Inc. v. NEC Casio Mobile Communications Ltd. et al Case No. 6:13-cv-00922
  • Reply 24 of 33
    bdkennedy1bdkennedy1 Posts: 1,459member
    Apparently the company is fond of the Nintendo Wii logo.
  • Reply 25 of 33
    hmmhmm Posts: 3,405member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post







    • Biscotti Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. Case No. 2:13-cv-01015



     

    That one made me laugh, probably due to the name.

  • Reply 26 of 33
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by imt1 View Post



    If this has merit, Apple should then gobble this up before Samsung does.

     

    I doubt this company would sell their IP. Far too lucrative to collect royalties until the patents expire.

  • Reply 27 of 33
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    sudonym wrote: »
    Patent law must be in terrible shape if these sorts of frivolous claims can be filed against a company like Apple.

    It isn't a frivolous claim if the patents are valid. Further this company is far from being a patent troll. In the end it comes down to did the Power VR hardware infringe. That will be difficult to determine.

    People seem to get wrapped up in the idea that any company that tries to protect its patents is some type of troll. That is unfortunate and frankly seems to highlight a complete misunderstanding of why the patent system even exists. The patent system is there to protect you as an inventor, simple as that. So if this company did invent these technologies and Apple did use then via the use of PowerVR technology then the suit is justified. The real question then becomes are the technologies identical and thus one a rip off of another.
  • Reply 28 of 33
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    You really don't know what you are talking about.
    I say "Another patent Holding scum bucket" simply because in the new patent troll laws, a company will not be able to wait until another infringing company expends "sweat" making the technology successful then decide to sue.
    You can only mount a law suite when you have evidence you think favors your case. You have no idea how long it took Ziilabs to build the case nor how long they have attempted a licensing deal with Apple.
    Thats exactly what ZiiLabs did. Secondly, Eastern District of Texas?? Really??
    Why not? Would you choose a court that is known to be hostile to the idea of patents? In any event this court does nothing outstanding other than to enforce patent law, it isn't like they are making it all up as they go along. Beyond that you never hear about the suites that fail in this district.
    The whole process just stinks!
    Not at all! The process is the only thing we have to protect the inventor. Is it perfect, certainly not but no legal process is.
    I want ZiiLabs to get spanked heavily and learn a valuable lesson regarding patent trolling and set a president for all other trolls!

    If you believe that then you are totally ignorant with respect to what is happening in this case and 3D Labs long history developing technology like this. Either the hardware Apple is using infringes or it doesn't, at this point it is up to the courts to decide.
  • Reply 29 of 33
    imt1imt1 Posts: 87member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

     

     

    I doubt this company would sell their IP. Far too lucrative to collect royalties until the patents expire.


    Its wasn't about buying the IP. Its about outright buying the company. Its public

  • Reply 30 of 33
    Patent Troll on…
  • Reply 31 of 33
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    imt1 wrote: »
    Its wasn't about buying the IP. Its about outright buying the company. Its public

    Yes, and unless the offer is for billions, I have real doubts a sale would be entertained.
  • Reply 32 of 33
    Doesn't Apple and Samsung liscense the GPU Tech. Shouldn't the infringement be suit be targetted at Intel, PowerVr , NVIDIA and AMD.
    Doesn't Apple and Samsung liscense the GPU Tech. Shouldn't the infringement be suit be targetted at Intel, PowerVr , NVIDIA and AMD.

    Well Samsung and Moto decide that the can withdraw their licenses for SEPs that Apple had agreements with Qualcomm and Infineon/Intel, so now anything goes?

    I agree with you opinions, but the courts need to decide.
  • Reply 33 of 33


    I say "Another patent Holding scum bucket" simply because in the new patent troll laws, a company will not be able to wait until another infringing company expends "sweat" making the technology successful then decide to sue.

    You can only mount a law suite when you have evidence you think favors your case. You have no idea how long it took Ziilabs to build the case nor how long they have attempted a licensing deal with Apple.

     

    -- Samsung was informed August 2013, ZiiLabs waited until they were successful....they are truly Patent trolls.

     

     

    Quote:
    Thats exactly what ZiiLabs did. Secondly, Eastern District of Texas?? Really??

    Why not? Would you choose a court that is known to be hostile to the idea of patents? In any event this court does nothing outstanding other than to enforce patent law, it isn't like they are making it all up as they go along. Beyond that you never hear about the suites that fail in this district.

     

    In the Eastern District of Texas, If you bother to do any research, One of the Judges and the Patent Attorney are Father/Son.

    This isn't a problem for you? The fact that there is a 90% Plaintiff win rate.......come on......think a little  bit.

     

     

    Quote:
    The whole process just stinks!

    Not at all! The process is the only thing we have to protect the inventor. Is it perfect, certainly not but no legal process is.

     

    The process in place better serves Patent trolls than inventors......Thats the problem being addressed.....The process currently Stinks!

     

    Quote:
    I want ZiiLabs to get spanked heavily and learn a valuable lesson regarding patent trolling and set a president for all other trolls!



    If you believe that then you are totally ignorant with respect to what is happening in this case and 3D Labs long history developing technology like this. Either the hardware Apple is using infringes or it doesn't, at this point it is up to the courts to decide.

     

    I think you're the ignorant one in this discussion, The process stinks because its not doing what it was designed to do. I assume you believe in Santa Clause and the Easter bunny as well in your perfect little world. Its time to make changes in the system.

Sign In or Register to comment.