Apple sued over FaceTime, auto-expiring voice Messages technology
Stalwart patent troll Uniloc filed a pair of lawsuits over the weekend claiming technology used in flagship Apple communications products, namely FaceTime and iMessage, infringe on property initially developed by HP and Philips.
Uniloc's latest legal overture, filed with the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas on Saturday, leverages patents dating back to the early 2000s.
The first suit targets Apple's FaceTime video conferencing service with a U.S. Patent No. 8,539,552 for a "System and method for network based policy enforcement of intelligent-client features."
Filed with the USPTO in 2003 and crediting former 3Com engineers, the '552 patent details methods of enabling and enforcing network policies between a communications service and client devices. Specifically, the IP's claims protect techniques of intercepting and intelligently filtering signaling messages that trigger communications services including caller ID, call waiting, multi-way calling, multi-line service, and codec specification.
FaceTime works in a similar manner by first binding a supporting device to a phone number or Apple ID, information that is used server-side for caller identification. When a user starts a FaceTime conversation, a signaling message is sent to FaceTime's servers, which determines whether the target device is authorized to accept a call, the suit reads.
If the target device is authenticated, a connection is established and the sender's information -- caller ID credentials -- are divulged to the recipient.
Filed with the USPTO in 2003 by Hewlett-Packard, the '552 patent was signed over to 3Com that same year. HP regained control of the IP, and more than 1,500 other assets, as part of its acquisition of 3Com in 2010.
Uniloc's main Luxembourg arm took control of the IP in 2017 before signing it over to Uniloc 2017 LLC in May of this year.
Uniloc claims Apple's iPhone 4 and later, iPad 2 and later, iPad Mini, fourth-generation iPod Touch and later versions and MacBooks running OS X and later infringe on multiple claims of the '552 patent.
In its second suit, Uniloc takes aim at iMessage audio features with U.S. Patent No. 7,020,252 for a "Group audio message board."
The patent, granted to Philips in 2006, details a "communal audio message recordal apparatus" that enables multiple users to record and access audio messages. Each message carries a "qualifying parameter," such as a timestamp or geographic location, which is used to grant or deny access to recordings.
The '252 patent presents an alternative to sifting through irrelevant messages, or gating access to messages, posted to a community style board. For example, users who visited a nightclub might be granted access to recordings from other users who also visited the venue within a specified time frame.
Uniloc construes the IP more narrowly, saying Apple's service allows users to record voice messages that expire after a set period, specifically two minutes after it has been played by a recipient device.
The '252 patent was filed for in 2001, then reassigned to IPG Electronics 503 in 2009, Pendragon Electronics in 2012 and finally Uniloc Luxembourg in February of 2018. Uniloc 2017 took control of the IP in July.
Uniloc's suit targets iOS devices running iOS 5 or later and Mac products running OS X or later.
Both suits seek unspecified damages, reimbursement of legal fees and other relief deemed fit by the court.
Saturday's lawsuits were filed a month after Uniloc's last play at Apple, which perhaps not coincidentally involved an HP patent and FaceTime.
In 2017 alone, Uniloc sued over Maps, Apple ID, remote software updates, AirPlay, autodialing, battery technology, device wake-up, step tracking, AirPlay, the Home app, the Apple TV Remote app and Apple Watch GPS capabilities.
Uniloc is one of the most active patent trolls in the U.S., leveraging reassigned patents or vaguely worded original IP against a number of tech firms including Activision Blizzard, Aspyr, Electronic Arts, McAfee, Microsoft, Rackspace, Sega, Sony, Symantec and others.
Uniloc's latest legal overture, filed with the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas on Saturday, leverages patents dating back to the early 2000s.
The first suit targets Apple's FaceTime video conferencing service with a U.S. Patent No. 8,539,552 for a "System and method for network based policy enforcement of intelligent-client features."
Filed with the USPTO in 2003 and crediting former 3Com engineers, the '552 patent details methods of enabling and enforcing network policies between a communications service and client devices. Specifically, the IP's claims protect techniques of intercepting and intelligently filtering signaling messages that trigger communications services including caller ID, call waiting, multi-way calling, multi-line service, and codec specification.
FaceTime works in a similar manner by first binding a supporting device to a phone number or Apple ID, information that is used server-side for caller identification. When a user starts a FaceTime conversation, a signaling message is sent to FaceTime's servers, which determines whether the target device is authorized to accept a call, the suit reads.
If the target device is authenticated, a connection is established and the sender's information -- caller ID credentials -- are divulged to the recipient.
Filed with the USPTO in 2003 by Hewlett-Packard, the '552 patent was signed over to 3Com that same year. HP regained control of the IP, and more than 1,500 other assets, as part of its acquisition of 3Com in 2010.
Uniloc's main Luxembourg arm took control of the IP in 2017 before signing it over to Uniloc 2017 LLC in May of this year.
Uniloc claims Apple's iPhone 4 and later, iPad 2 and later, iPad Mini, fourth-generation iPod Touch and later versions and MacBooks running OS X and later infringe on multiple claims of the '552 patent.
In its second suit, Uniloc takes aim at iMessage audio features with U.S. Patent No. 7,020,252 for a "Group audio message board."
The patent, granted to Philips in 2006, details a "communal audio message recordal apparatus" that enables multiple users to record and access audio messages. Each message carries a "qualifying parameter," such as a timestamp or geographic location, which is used to grant or deny access to recordings.
The '252 patent presents an alternative to sifting through irrelevant messages, or gating access to messages, posted to a community style board. For example, users who visited a nightclub might be granted access to recordings from other users who also visited the venue within a specified time frame.
Uniloc construes the IP more narrowly, saying Apple's service allows users to record voice messages that expire after a set period, specifically two minutes after it has been played by a recipient device.
The '252 patent was filed for in 2001, then reassigned to IPG Electronics 503 in 2009, Pendragon Electronics in 2012 and finally Uniloc Luxembourg in February of 2018. Uniloc 2017 took control of the IP in July.
Uniloc's suit targets iOS devices running iOS 5 or later and Mac products running OS X or later.
Both suits seek unspecified damages, reimbursement of legal fees and other relief deemed fit by the court.
Saturday's lawsuits were filed a month after Uniloc's last play at Apple, which perhaps not coincidentally involved an HP patent and FaceTime.
In 2017 alone, Uniloc sued over Maps, Apple ID, remote software updates, AirPlay, autodialing, battery technology, device wake-up, step tracking, AirPlay, the Home app, the Apple TV Remote app and Apple Watch GPS capabilities.
Uniloc is one of the most active patent trolls in the U.S., leveraging reassigned patents or vaguely worded original IP against a number of tech firms including Activision Blizzard, Aspyr, Electronic Arts, McAfee, Microsoft, Rackspace, Sega, Sony, Symantec and others.
Uniloc FaceTime Suit by Mikey Campbell on Scribd
Comments
It's like the boy who cried wolf. Even if there is a lawsuit with some merit, it is all obscured by the barrage of other lawsuits Uniloc files.
At what point does bias set it for a judge? Granted that each Uniloc lawsuit is probably presided over by a different judge, but the pool of judges that can preside over technological cases must be relatively small and at some point a judge will probably snap and tell Uniloc to fuck off.
Wishful thinking...
Or maybe there should simply be a relatively short period of time after a patent is issued that it can be enforced by a non-practicing entity, and not thereafter. That would prevent a lot of lawsuits that are focused on patents issued 12-18 years ago. Someone is obviously given the task of reviewing old patents, no doubt purchased on the cheap and in bulk, to see if any can be litigated against deep-pocketed corporations that are adding tons of value through their own efforts. It’s a sad state of affairs.
We don’t need software patents when copyright already protects code. If it’s not the same code, it’s not the same implementation. If it’s not the same implementation it doesn’t merit patent protection.
There is no real issue with the original patent holders, in that I have hardly ever heard of any of the original holders filing suit. So if Joe bloggs has an idea and expands on it sufficiently to patent it, but for example cannot fund its creation for whatever reason, and a couple of years down the line someone creates something that infringes, then fair enough if the holder files suit. But nobody should be able to purchase or have IP reassigned unless they can prove that they intend to make use of said IP within a reasonable time limit and have the funds and plans in place to create whatever product that may be. I would wager with such rule change it would put an end to all of this. And it would be fair to all the inventors that perhaps really want to create something but for whatever reason cannot. As I genuinely believe that 99.99% of these people have neither the inclination or resources or sheer greedy motives to make such a claim.