carnegie

radarthekat said:

chasm said:

1. Eastern District of Texas, even though neither litigant lives there. So Red Rock's a patent troll.
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.

This is a case of indirect infringement.  It’s Broadcom’s or whomever’s WiFi chips Apple uses who would actually be in ỉnfringement, but you go after the company that actually expresses the infringement in an end-market product and let them seek indemnitication from their supplier.  

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. 

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.

gatorguy said:

chasm said:

...As noted above, most of these probably have prior art or other problems that will get them invalidated. Seven Networks is pretty obviously hoping for a settlement.

d. Man I hate to break it to Seven Networks, but Android has pretty much every one of these features and ... oh, you only want to sue the company with the deep pockets? All righty then!

Hate to break it to YOU but really, couldn't you spend just 5 minutes looking into it before making assumptive comments? You're not the only one, there's several others confident in what they're posting. Many posters are too quick to assume stuff. Slow down and take a few minutes to check stuff out before putting it in writing.

I'll fill in some of the blanks.

Long before Apple Seven Networks had already sued Google, the company infamous for challenging patent validity and exceedingly successful at it. Yet Google agreed to a license with Seven Networks in January, apparently fairly confident at least some of patents would survive challenge and settling was the best course. Apple is next up. Personally I'd put my money on Apple settling rather than going to trial.

Be sure to read the link below too. This was a very different way of handling the case and perhaps setting a precedent on high profile and highly involved patent cases in that district.
https://www.marshallnewsmessenger.com/news/seven-networks-google-settle-patent-infringement-case/article_a9980990-1e9d-11e9-8459-9fb887ce315c.html

The case against Google would have been a biggie, ongoing since 2017.  Google attempted patent claims invalidation without much success, asked for a move of venue to California where they're based but was denied. Appealed to the Federal circuit and denied again because they have servers in Texas (!).

Seven seems to have a strong case. Google demanded a jury trial rather than bench, even in the patent friendly Eastern District. Seven didn't flinch. Google filed motions to dismiss on a number of different grounds. All dismissed. Change of venue. Dismissed. Appeal. Dismissed. Challenged patent claims. Ruled in favor os Seven. Challenged the terms in the claims, and the claim construction. Ruled in Seven's favor. 

Finally in the two weeks preceding the trial Google petitioned the Federal Circuit for an en banc hearing. Denied again. Google waited until the eve of the trial to settle with them, apparently out of options and believing they would likely be found guilty of infringement if it went to trial.
 https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6257171/seven-networks-llc-v-google-llc/

This is NOT the typical patent troll filing. 

A few things:

(1) It wasn't just Google that wanted a jury trial in that case. Seven Networks demanded a jury trial from the outset.

(2) It's not uncommon for a defendant to ask for dismissal on a number of grounds and be denied. That doesn't mean that the plaintiff has a strong case on the merits. Google did ask to have the case moved to the ND of CA where it had filed its own case against Seven Networks (asking for a declaratory judgment that it hadn't infringed). Google probably should have lost on that issue but, again, that doesn't suggest that Seven Networks' merits case was strong.

(3) Judge Gilstrap didn't rule in Seven Networks' favor with regard to claim construction. His claim construction decisions were a mixed bag. In some regards they favored Google (and agreed with Google's arguments) and in some regards they favored Seven Networks. Sometimes his claim construction was in between what was proposed by the parties. But I don't think it would even be fair to say his decisions, on the whole, heavily favored Seven Networks. It surely isn't accurate to say that he ruled in Seven Networks' favor, unless we're only referring to a specific claim construction. And there were many disputed claim constructions which he had to rule on.

(4) To be clear, the suit which Seven Networks brought against Google only involved one of the patents which it has asserted against Apple. There were originally 9 patents asserted in its case against Google. Apparently all but 4 of those patents were, at some point, dropped from the case. That could be for a number of reasons. I don't know as I haven't looked through enough court filings to find out (even if some of them gave indication as to why). But it could be because Seven Networks felt its case was weak with regard to some of them (e.g., because it got unfavorable claim constructions).  EDIT: To correct, there were originally 10 patents asserted in the case against Google.

(5) Google had managed to get IPRs instituted against all of the remaining patents in suit. Institution isn't just a formality. It means that the board thought there was likelihood of success (for Google demonstrating un-patentatibility) on at least one of the challenged claims from each instituted IPR.

(6) When the parties reached a settlement, they asked the PTAB to terminate the outstanding IPRs. In other words, Google agreed not to pursue its challenges to the validity of the patents which were still at issue in the ED of Texas case. It also agreed to terminate challenges to the validity of other Seven Networks patents.

(7) So... I wouldn't conclude that the parties resolved their issues on terms which were largely in Seven Networks favor. Perhaps they were, perhaps they weren't. Google may have agreed to pay something, but the amount might have been fairly small - small enough that it was better than taking a chance with a jury trial and having the dispute drag on for a while. The reality that there was a settlement doesn't mean that Seven Networks had a strong case. It also had something to lose by proceeding. Its patents could have been invalidated by the PTAB even if the jury in the ED of TX case found that they were valid. Unless you have some way of knowing the terms of the settlement, we just don't know whether it represented Google folding or Seven Networks folding or them both giving considerable ground. And, at any rate, the strength of Seven Networks' case against Google doesn't tell us much about the strength of its case against Apple. As I indicated, only one of the 16 patents asserted against Apple was involved in the Google case. And that's one of the patents for which Google was able to get an IPR instituted.

riverko said:

So, if I understood well all various articles I read - if you are a criminal and get arrested, no one can force you to unlock your device. If you are a tourist and want to visit USA, you have to unlock your device... So criminals have more rights that legal tourists/visitors... Congratulations...

Even though the government can conduct suspicionless searches at borders (or their functional equivalents, e.g. airports) which they couldn't conduct elsewhere, it can't compel someone to provide a passcode or use a passcode to unlock electronic devices in connection with those searches. In this case, and likely in others, CBP officers allegedly tried to make Mr. Gal believe that they could - i.e., they threatened him with criminal prosecution if he didn't do what they asked.

But, no, generally speaking you can't be made to unlock your devices even for (suspicionless) border searches.

boltsfan17 said:

macxpress said:

hentaiboy said:

Not sure that NDAs wash when law enforcement is involved. 

At the same time, you're immediately put in a tough spot if you're unsure of what to do which is most likely why he wanted to speak with some at Apple and/or a lawyer. Do I give everything up and risk losing my job, or what? 

Also, just because its law enforcement, doesn't give them the right to just search someone's property for very little to no reason. They're not above the law...they're there to enforce the law using legal means (proper policies and procedures). 

CBP does have the right to search someone's property if they are entering the country. They don't need a reason. Fourth Amendment protections don't apply at ports of entry. It's like that with pretty much any border services agency in any country. They have the right to search someone's property when you enter a country. 

Fourth Amendment protections do apply at ports of entry. It's just that the rules are somewhat different. Suspicionless routine border searches are allowed. But there's conflicting case law when it comes to forensic (border) searches of electronic devices such as smartphones and computers, with some circuits having held that such searches require some degree of individualized suspicion (which could mean reasonable suspicion or probable cause sufficient to get a warrant). I think the Supreme Court's decision in Riley v California (2014) lends considerable support to the view that individualized suspicion is required for such searches. While that case didn't consider the border search exception in particular, it did consider a different Fourth Amendment exception - that for searches incident to arrest - and how it applied to comprehensive searches of electronic devices.

At any rate, this complaint isn't just about the CBP's right to search the devices in question or Mr. Gal's Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches. The right to search such devices isn't the same as a right to force someone to provide their passcodes or to unlock (i.e. decrypt) such devices or otherwise assist the CBP in its searches of them. Even if the CBP could, based on the border search exception, conduct a suspicionless search of Mr. Gal's electronic devices, it couldn't require him to provide his passcodes or unlock his devices. It likely couldn't do that even with probable cause; it surely couldn't do it without reasonable suspicion.

There's also the issue of continuing to detain and interrogate Mr. Gal, and threatening him with criminal prosecution, in response to his refusal to provide his passcodes without first being allowed to consult with an attorney. A right to conduct a border search of electronic devices, even if it existed under the given circumstances, isn't the same as a right to detain someone. And the CBP officers surely knew - or should have known - that Mr. Gal couldn't be (successfully) prosecuted for refusing to provide his passcodes, let alone for refusing to provide them until he was allowed to speak to an attorney.

The ACLU also raises a First Amendment issue. Even if the CBP has a right to conduct suspicionless searches under certain circumstances, it doesn't have the right to conduct a given suspicionless search on the basis of - or in retaliation for - someone's protected speech. Based on the questions Mr. Gal was asked by CBP officers, he seems to suspect that he might have been targeted because of his publicly-expressed views regarding privacy rights.

The First Amendment issue aside, border searches of electronic devices gets into some interesting legal questions which are far from sorted out. CBP officers have a right to conduct searches, but what are they allowed to do in order to coerce people into assisting those searches? They can't prevent U.S. citizens from reentering the country without sufficient justification. So, e.g., how long can CBP officers detain someone if they refuse to decrypt their electronic devices so that CBP officers can search them?

At any rate, what the CBP officers are alleged to have done in this situation is appalling. They should, if the allegations are true, go to jail. But, of course, they won't.

So Qualcomm won on the patent which matters less (as, I believe, Qualcomm only argued that it was infringed by the iPhone 7 and iPhone 7 Plus) and lost on the patents which mattered more (as Qualcomm argued that they were infringed by later iPhone models).

By won, I mean that the ALJ made a final initial determination that Apple infringed one of the asserted claims of the '674 patent. The ALJ also determined that Apple didn't infringe the other asserted claim of that patent, that Apple didn't infringe the asserted claim of the '336 patent, and that the asserted claims of the '356 patent are invalid.