The U.S. Supreme Court heard testimony on from Apple, Samsung, and the Department of Justice on Tuesday on how damages should be calculated in design-related patent infringement cases. The hearing is the latest round in the mobile device patent infringement fight the two companies started in 2011, and underscores how confusing it can be to set damages values.
Samsung’s on-again-off-again fine for infringing on Apple’s slide-to-unlock patent is back on again. A U.S. Federal Appeals Court overturned its own ruling on Friday that Samsung didn’t have to pay the fine, so now the smartphone maker owes Apple US$119.6 million for infringing on the unlock and autocorrect-related patents.
A just published Apple patent shows Touch ID sensors embedded throughout a device display, which means iPhone and iPad users could potentially touch anywhere on their screen to unlock with their finger print. Touch to unlock is currently a Home button feature, but if this patent finds its way into shipping products, it could be the demise for our little clickable friend.
The third time is a charm for VirnetX and its ongoing patent infringement lawsuit fight with Apple because a Tyler, Texas, Federal Court jury ruled the iPhone and iPad maker owes the company US$302.4 million. The patents in question cover secure communication and FaceTime, and now the case will head to the Appeals Court where VirnetX may have a harder time convincing a judge to let it keep the money.
Yesterday the internet was busy speculating about why Apple patented an articulated joint system that’s perfect for military vehicles. The patent seemed out of place for an electric car, and it turns out that’s the case because the law firm handling patents for Apple says it was accidentally assigned to the wrong company thanks to a clerical error.
VirnetX’s big US$625 million patent infringement win against Apple just became a big loss. Federal Appeals Court Judge Robert Schroeder tossed out the judgement and set a retrial saying VirnetX acted inappropriately during the trial and very likely prejudiced the jury.
The iPhone and iPad may seem like an odd place to find an Apple Watch-like Digital Crown, but that’s exactly what a just published patent application shows. The patent shows the Digital Crown controlling volume, snapping photos, and locking the display. That doesn’t, however, mean your next iPad will look like a giant Apple Watch.
If Apple’s latest patent is any indication, your next Apple Pencil will be more than a pointing and drawing accessory for your iPad Pro. It’ll also be a pointing device for your Mac, and a joystick for gaming.
Samsung’s appeal in its ongoing patent infringement fight with Apple over smartphone designs goes before the U.S. Supreme Court on October 11th. This doesn’t, however, signal the end of a battle that started in 2011 and is only the latest round in a dispute that’s drug on for years.
A patent infringement fight against Apple over Coverflow technology that started in 2008 has finally come to an end with a US$25 million settlement. Apple agreed to pay the sum to Network-1 Technologies, far less than the $625 million originally awarded.
Apple has yet another patent infringement lawsuit to deal with, this time for the sliding carousel effect on the Apple.com home page. The case was filed by Samuel Lit who holds a 2008 patent describing the carousel effect—an effect that’s easy to find on scores of websites.
Musicians and other live performers could have a new way to stop attendees from using their smartphones to record video, photos, and audio at events thanks to a new patent from Apple. The iPhone and iPad maker was awarded a patent this week for a system that remotely disables recording with infrared signals. The system could be used in other ways, too, like blocking recording in secure facilities, or by governments to prevent free speech.
Thomas Ross says he invented and patented the idea of the iPhone in the early 1990s, so he’s suing to the tune of US$13 billion Apple for stealing his intellectual property. Never mind the fact that his patent was declared abandoned in 1995, he didn’t go after Apple when the MessagePad was a thing, and he isn’t suing other smartphone makers.
The Chinese company that won a ban on iPhone 6 sales in Beijing has been dead for about a year. But if you’re thinking this is a case where China’s government is using Shenzhen Baili’s name in a political game against Apple, think again; this is a case where a company couldn’t cut it making crappy products in a cut throat market.