New lawsuit alleges patent infringement by all Wi-Fi-enabled Apple products
A company called Red Rock Analytics in a new lawsuit charges that Apple is infringing a patent covering transceiver technology in Wi-Fi chips.
The U.S. patent, No. 7,346,313 -- "Calibration of I-Q Balance in Transceivers" -- was issued to Red Rock in March 2008, and any Apple product compatible with 802.11n or later is in violation, according to a complaint submitted through a U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. That district is a notorious venue for patent lawsuits, since it has relatively little other traffic and its judges are thought to be friendly to patent holders.
Red Rock is asking for an injunction against further infringement, along with attorney fees and damage compensation, including pre- and post-judgment interest.
Details about Red Rock are otherwise difficult to come by, except that the firm officially operates out of Swampscott, Mass. It previously launched an Eastern District lawsuit against Samsung over the same patent, court documents say, but the state of that case is uncertain. Samsung did file a countersuit.
A notable inaccuracy in the Red Rock v. Apple submission is that it identifies Apple's "principal place of business" as 1 Infinite Loop -- the company's official corporate address was switched to Apple Park in Feb. 2018.
The U.S. patent, No. 7,346,313 -- "Calibration of I-Q Balance in Transceivers" -- was issued to Red Rock in March 2008, and any Apple product compatible with 802.11n or later is in violation, according to a complaint submitted through a U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. That district is a notorious venue for patent lawsuits, since it has relatively little other traffic and its judges are thought to be friendly to patent holders.
Red Rock is asking for an injunction against further infringement, along with attorney fees and damage compensation, including pre- and post-judgment interest.
Details about Red Rock are otherwise difficult to come by, except that the firm officially operates out of Swampscott, Mass. It previously launched an Eastern District lawsuit against Samsung over the same patent, court documents say, but the state of that case is uncertain. Samsung did file a countersuit.
A notable inaccuracy in the Red Rock v. Apple submission is that it identifies Apple's "principal place of business" as 1 Infinite Loop -- the company's official corporate address was switched to Apple Park in Feb. 2018.
Red Rock Analytics Lawsuit by on Scribd
Comments
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
No surprise there.
2. If 802.11n and later are the problem, why sue Apple? They didn't invent 802.11n. Oh wait, $$$ that's why.
3. They already tried this scam on Samsung and it didn't fly there either.
I think I can guess how this case will be resolved.
Also, the penalty can go up if the defendant knew there was infringement in the parts they used or if it was their specific use that triggered the infringement. So I don’t blame the plaintive for suing Apple; I just think they are underhanded going about it in the Eastern District of Texas, where it’s judges who are friendly to their lawyer sons who in turn hire themselves out to the patent trolls. That’s what’s going on there.
That said, why do you suggest that it didn't fly when Red Rock brought a similar action against Samsung? The best I can tell that action hasn't been resolved in favor of Samsung. And Samsung tried, but was unable, to get IPRs instituted (by the PTAB) against the patent in suit.
Red Rock alleges both direct and indirect infringement.
Even though the infringement would be from Broadcom's chips, Apple would still be guilty of direct infringement. For that matter, you and I and others who own infringing iPhones would be direct infringers. If company A builds components which infringe and sells them to company B which incorporates them in products which it sells to store C which sells them to customer D, everyone in the chain - A, B, C, and D can be direct infringers. (There are jurisdictional issues, so it might depend on where various actions happened.)
Indirect infringement would be infringement by inducement or contributory infringement. Infringement by inducement would mean that the accused didn't actually infringe themselves, but knowingly induced someone else to infringe. If Apple encouraged Broadcom to build WiFi chips which infringed, knowing about the patent in question, it might be guilty of infringement by inducement. If it put those infringing chips in its own devices and then sold them (or, e.g., offered them for sale) it might also be guilty of direct infringement. Apple might also be guilty of infringement by inducement for selling iPhones to customers.
Contributory infringement would mean making something which didn't by itself infringe, but which in combination with something else would infringe, where there isn't any other (non-infringing) use for the something you make. So, if Broadcom built a component which didn't infringe but which was meant to be used with another component in a way which would infringe, then it could - if infringement actually occurred (e.g. the combination of the components was sold) - be guilty of contributory infringement.
>Even though the infringement would be from Broadcom's chips, Apple would still be guilty of direct infringement. For that matter, you and I >and others who own infringing iPhones would be direct infringers. If company A builds components which infringe and sells them to company >B which incorporates them in products which it sells to store C which sells them to customer D, everyone in the chain - A, B, C, and D can be >direct infringers. (There are jurisdictional issues, so it might depend on where various actions happened.)
Ah, that's ye olde it-is-infringement-if-you-"make, buy, sell, or use"-the-invention. But in this chain the deep pockets usually
get the lawsuit. Customer D "use" lawsuits have gone out of style, as have actual injunctions against store C "sell".
Here Apple is Company B which is the deep pocket. Yet, in the semiconductor arena, company A usually indemnifies
Company B, so it would be informative to get that story straight.
Also, there are the not-so-small issues of royalty stacking and apportionment; to wit:
https://www.mintz.com/insights-center/viewpoints/2231/2018-01-damages-apportionment-infringing-method-claim-when-smallest
I.e., out of the thousands of (patented or unpainted) ideas that make up an iPhone, what percentage is
this so-called WiFi improvement worth? Where is this invention even mentioned in an engineering textbook
as a novel, non-obvious idea, rather than as a garden-variety workman-like improvement?
That said, and to be clear, buying isn't one of the actions that constitutes (direct) infringement. They are making, using, offering to sell, selling, or importing.