Apple's Messages target of new Uniloc patent suit
Serial patent lawsuit filer and non-practicing entity Uniloc on Tuesday filed suit against Apple, claiming Messages app and iMessage backend service features infringe on multiple owned voice over IP patents.
Lodged with the Eastern Texas District Court, Uniloc's claims leverage four patents providing for an instant voice messaging system facilitated through VoIP protocols. At issue, Unicode says, is an audio transmission component of iMessage, and consequently all Messages apps, first introduced alongside iOS 8 in 2014.
Uniloc cites U.S. Patent Nos. 7,535,890, 8,995,433, 8,724,622 and 8,243,723, all related inventions titled "System and method for instant VoIP messaging." The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office initially granted the '890 patent to Ayalogic in 2009, a now defunct firm marketing communications solutions for gaming platforms. Subsequent assignments went to patent licensing firm Empire IP.
The Uniloc patents cover an instant voice messaging system capable of delivering digitized audio files from one user to another via an offsite server. Apple's implementation uses similar technology to record short audio snippets in the Messages app, route the resulting data file through its cloud-based iMessage service and ultimately deliver the message to an end user for in-app playback. A video counterpart was also introduced in iOS 8, but the feature is not named in Uniloc's suit.
With a storied history of high-profile patent suits under its belt, Uniloc is known as a voracious complainant with a penchant for filing in the patent holder-friendly Texas court. The firm has over the past few years filed dozens of lawsuits against big-name tech companies including Activision Blizzard, Aspyr, Electronic Arts, McAfee, Microsoft, Rackspace, Sega, Sony, Symantec and more. In 2009, Uniloc won a $388 million jury verdict against Microsoft over an unrelated patent claim. That ruling was later overturned, prompting an out of court settlement.
In its suit against Apple, Uniloc seeks unspecified damages, reimbursement of legal expenses and miscellaneous relief deemed fit by the court.
Lodged with the Eastern Texas District Court, Uniloc's claims leverage four patents providing for an instant voice messaging system facilitated through VoIP protocols. At issue, Unicode says, is an audio transmission component of iMessage, and consequently all Messages apps, first introduced alongside iOS 8 in 2014.
Uniloc cites U.S. Patent Nos. 7,535,890, 8,995,433, 8,724,622 and 8,243,723, all related inventions titled "System and method for instant VoIP messaging." The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office initially granted the '890 patent to Ayalogic in 2009, a now defunct firm marketing communications solutions for gaming platforms. Subsequent assignments went to patent licensing firm Empire IP.
The Uniloc patents cover an instant voice messaging system capable of delivering digitized audio files from one user to another via an offsite server. Apple's implementation uses similar technology to record short audio snippets in the Messages app, route the resulting data file through its cloud-based iMessage service and ultimately deliver the message to an end user for in-app playback. A video counterpart was also introduced in iOS 8, but the feature is not named in Uniloc's suit.
With a storied history of high-profile patent suits under its belt, Uniloc is known as a voracious complainant with a penchant for filing in the patent holder-friendly Texas court. The firm has over the past few years filed dozens of lawsuits against big-name tech companies including Activision Blizzard, Aspyr, Electronic Arts, McAfee, Microsoft, Rackspace, Sega, Sony, Symantec and more. In 2009, Uniloc won a $388 million jury verdict against Microsoft over an unrelated patent claim. That ruling was later overturned, prompting an out of court settlement.
In its suit against Apple, Uniloc seeks unspecified damages, reimbursement of legal expenses and miscellaneous relief deemed fit by the court.
Comments
SCOTUS yesterday lowered the bar for the determination of willful infringement and treble damages. It's no longer good enough for a company to claim they had reason to believe they were not infringing. This may lead companies to stop ignoring offers to license from some non-practicing entities.
so this website doesn't work on iPad? Nice.
From the Ars Technica link that loquitur provided;
"While not spelling out a new formula for judges to consider, the justices said that enhanced damages should not be granted in "garden-variety cases." Because of that, the court noted, patent trolls won't flourish under today's holding.
With that in mind, the justices ordered the lower courts to take another crack at the damages awarded in two cases."
Looks like this is targeted at "exceptional" cases only.
No, you're sloppily implying bad facts again. The $388M was overturned under amazingly suspicious and rare circumstances (overturning a jury verdict is rare enough, but in this case the pro-Microsoft judge refused to recuse his clerk who was a former Microsoft intern). The judge overturned the jury verdict, but the Court of Appeals disciplined the pro-Microsoft trial judge and reinstated the verdict. The overturning of the trial court's J.N.O.V. ruling was what prompted Microsoft to settle; it was not, as you sloppily imply, the overturning of the J.N.O.V. which prompted them to settle.
You seem afraid to call Microsoft a pirate, but you have no problem writing poorly researched articles trying to brand a less powerful company with a trendy insult.
"The decision against Microsoft was subsequently overturned on September 29, 2009, when Judge Smith vacated the jury's verdict and ruled in favour of Microsoft again, saying the jury "lacked a grasp of the issues before it and reached a finding without a legally sufficient basis".[14] Uniloc appealed the judge's decision, alleging bias and in 2011 the jury verdict was reinstated against Microsoft." -- wiki
"Correction July 8th, 7:15PM ET: The Supreme Court did not overturn the earlier patent case, as this article initially stated; it denied review, leaving intact a ruling overturning the judgement."
http://www.theverge.com/2016/7/8/12132806/apple-25m-patent-lawsuit-settlement-network-1-mirror-worlds ;
You're not too proud to correct your story in similar fashion, are you?