Patent troll targets iOS and Mac app update system in lawsuit
Apple is once again in the crosshairs of non-practicing entity Uniloc, which on Tuesday filed a complaint alleging the tech giant's app update mechanisms in iOS and macOS infringe on a patent developed by Philips.
Lodged with the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, Uniloc's lawsuit leverages a single patent filed for in 1999 and granted in 2002 to Philips Electronics.
The IP in question, U.S. Patent No. 6,467,088 for a "Reconfiguration manager for controlling upgrades of electronic devices," covers methods of fulfilling software upgrade requests based on a specific set of configuration parameters on the host device.
For example, the system might determine whether a requested update requires a specific operating system version and either allow or deny the process based on that information. Compatibility checks appear to be at the heart of the suit.
According to complaint, Apple's iOS and macOS are in violation of Uniloc's patent because they rely on respective iOS App Store and Mac App Store mechanisms to update installed apps. Said updates can be considered "reconfigurations" of the device, in infringement of multiple '088 patent claims, the suit asserts.
Accused infringing devices are identified as those running iOS or macOS, including the iOS App Store or Mac App Store. In other words, all iPhones, iPads, iPod touch units and Mac models capable of downloading, installing and updating apps through the App Store.
Apple filed an petition to challenge the validity of the '088 patent with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in 2018, arguing that the IP's claims are obvious pursuant to prior actions. The PTAB declined to take up the review on grounds that Apple failed to show likelihood that it would prevail on presented merits. A subsequent request for a rehearing was denied in July.
Uniloc initially leveraged the IP against Apple in 2018, though that case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice.
Uniloc in its complaint seeks a jury trial to determine undisclosed damages and court fees.
Lodged with the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, Uniloc's lawsuit leverages a single patent filed for in 1999 and granted in 2002 to Philips Electronics.
The IP in question, U.S. Patent No. 6,467,088 for a "Reconfiguration manager for controlling upgrades of electronic devices," covers methods of fulfilling software upgrade requests based on a specific set of configuration parameters on the host device.
For example, the system might determine whether a requested update requires a specific operating system version and either allow or deny the process based on that information. Compatibility checks appear to be at the heart of the suit.
According to complaint, Apple's iOS and macOS are in violation of Uniloc's patent because they rely on respective iOS App Store and Mac App Store mechanisms to update installed apps. Said updates can be considered "reconfigurations" of the device, in infringement of multiple '088 patent claims, the suit asserts.
Accused infringing devices are identified as those running iOS or macOS, including the iOS App Store or Mac App Store. In other words, all iPhones, iPads, iPod touch units and Mac models capable of downloading, installing and updating apps through the App Store.
Apple filed an petition to challenge the validity of the '088 patent with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in 2018, arguing that the IP's claims are obvious pursuant to prior actions. The PTAB declined to take up the review on grounds that Apple failed to show likelihood that it would prevail on presented merits. A subsequent request for a rehearing was denied in July.
Uniloc initially leveraged the IP against Apple in 2018, though that case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice.
Uniloc in its complaint seeks a jury trial to determine undisclosed damages and court fees.
Uniloc App Update Suit by Mikey Campbell on Scribd
Comments
Doesn't every software update system in the world on every platform and device only detect and install updates that are compatible? Now they are all in violation of this patent? Such patents should not be issued.
Four letters .... s - c - u - m.
I was involved in a lawsuit not too long ago because some companies were getting sued pretty much over choosing an index to search from a list (like subject, title, etc). Totally obvious. I was involved because I did it in a CD-ROM product in 1986, long before this other idiot company got a patent and I'm sure a ton of people did it before me. And that same product also checked prior configuration when it ran updates. Again, totally obvious.
Didn't Apple (and other products) check for such factors as whether you had a joystick plugged in back in the Apple ][ days?
Making and maintaining a list of applications that an institution had licenses for was a common practice even in the early 1990s, and each item on the list would include information about the requirements for the application (it's called a database). When the web started becoming popular, many educational institutions would put these databases online for their intranet, with download links to the relevant executable.
HOWEVER
Your description is a simplification of the patent that has been granted; if it wasn't then I'm pretty sure Apple would have been able to convince the PTAB to toss the patent on review. Since that hasn't happened (as mentioned in the article) there must be some non-obvious component.
But I'm not bored enough to read the patent or the complaint for more details.