Firm sues Apple over 'fast-charge' battery tech used in iPhone 6s
A lawsuit filed on Tuesday accuses Apple of infringing a 2010 patent via the battery charging technology in the iPhone 6s, along with "any similar devices."
The complaint, lodged by Somaltus LLC in a U.S. District Court for Eastern Texas, specifically targets the "fast-charge" features of the 6s battery, MacRumors noted. The phone is said to use a system that that maximizes charging speeds whenever the battery is below 80 percent capacity, above which it switches to a trickle-charge mode. The feature helps maintain the battery's longevity.
That technology violates at least the first claim of U.S. Patent No. 7,657,386, according to Somaltus. In compensation the company is asking for either unspecified damage payments or ongoing royalties.
The company has also filed separate suits against Asus, Lenovo, Samsung, Sony, and Toshiba.
While Somaltus appears to be non-practicing patent troll of the sort Apple is used to, the latter party could potentially be pressured into a settlement. Somaltus has already settled with carmakers such as Ford and Nissan over the patent, and for Apple settlement costs might be preferable to the expenses of a protracted court battle and/or an unfavorable ruling.
The complaint, lodged by Somaltus LLC in a U.S. District Court for Eastern Texas, specifically targets the "fast-charge" features of the 6s battery, MacRumors noted. The phone is said to use a system that that maximizes charging speeds whenever the battery is below 80 percent capacity, above which it switches to a trickle-charge mode. The feature helps maintain the battery's longevity.
That technology violates at least the first claim of U.S. Patent No. 7,657,386, according to Somaltus. In compensation the company is asking for either unspecified damage payments or ongoing royalties.
The company has also filed separate suits against Asus, Lenovo, Samsung, Sony, and Toshiba.
While Somaltus appears to be non-practicing patent troll of the sort Apple is used to, the latter party could potentially be pressured into a settlement. Somaltus has already settled with carmakers such as Ford and Nissan over the patent, and for Apple settlement costs might be preferable to the expenses of a protracted court battle and/or an unfavorable ruling.
Comments
If East Texas did not exist, would these suits happen elsewhere?
Our society is getting stomped by corporate executives and politicians who don't care about the measly insects (average civilians, workers, consumers) they trample while slugging it out with each other in the sandbox we built for them.
Hello, worker cast speaking here: it'd be nice if we tried that whole "government for the people, by the people" thing we were told about in grade school...
As for suites involving drugs many are in fact attempts to enrich the pockets of lawyers, the problem is filtering them out from legitimate complaints.
This brings us up to this issue, is this a frivolous lawsuit? AI apparently thinks so and came to that conclusion with no real research apparently. But like actions taken against drugs is it rational to pass judgement so early. The patent could be completely ligitimate, nobody has researched it enough to say one way or the other.
Now onto to your second point, you whine about corporate executives about not caring about the little people but this is exactly the opposite of what is happening here. The little guy, in this case the patent holder, is taking on the big corporations. What people fail to understand is that a lot of technology out there is developed by small often one man engineering firms. Often these guys (mostly guys) struggle to realize the benefit of their invention when it gets stolen by big corporations like Apple.
Consider this, Apple has a policy of not licensing tech preferring going to court instead. That is very much the corporate abuse that you seem so set against. Apple is seldom the good guy here. So really I don't know why people side with Apple without at least considering the possibility that they are the ones in error here.
As as for this patent time will tell, it is either valid or it isn't. If the patent is valid then the question becomes did Apple use the tech, if so they wil have to pay up. Simple as that.
Damages are what you could have earned through a proper license if your tech wasn't stolen by a big corporation. Think about it this way, how would you feel if you invented a new transistor technology in your cellar to replace FinFET tech and had the like of Intel, Global Foundries or whom ever rip it off. You don't have the resources to build a billion dollar fab to go into business for yourself so your only option is licensing the tech. If these big companies refuse your only recourse is to go to court to demand royalties. I can assure you that big companies ripping off the little guy happens all the time. Apple is just a guilty as all the rest here. So before getting your panties in a twist consider that there is the possibility of a valid patent here. The world isn't black and white at all. The court will eventually rule one way or the other here, until that time it really isn't an issue of discussion. Mainly because nobody has researched in depth the patent nor how it came to be.
apple is not in the business of "stealing" technology. the problem is software patents are stupid and ineffective -- implementations should be protected via copyright on your code, not patenting ideas. implementation is what should be protected, not ideas. with physical goods this is what we see -- I can't patent a "flying car" as an abstract idea, but I can patent my hyper warp drive that makes building one possible.
code should be copyrightable and that's it. just like a novel.
who claimed East Texas issued the patent? no one. no one claimed that.
but many have noted and stories have been published about why East Texas is targeted as the venue for these suits. go educate yourself on the matter.
A few cases where the scumbags and shysters get hit in the pocket might make others be a bit more careful before filing suit.
My argument for circumvention stands, just switch the AC source between high and lower power levels feeding the whole circuit and you won't be switching on/off as specified in claim 1.
Here's the relevant claim 1 text: '..., the processor generating a control signal to alter a charge signal by adjusting an on/off period of an AC power source to a transformer coupled to the battery;...'