iPhone 5 being banned in the US lawsuit

[Virgil]

Has anyone heard of the lawsuit with Motorola and the possible US ban on the iPhone 5, iPad mini, and new iPod touch?



As you probably know, Google’s Motorola filed new patent lawsuit against Apple on Friday, accusing that iPhone maker is infringing on 7 more patents.

Since the documents were delivered to U.S. International Trade Commission late in the day on Friday, we could only guess which patents Motorola decided to use this time. Today ITC made all the documents public. We check-out the patents at play in this lawsuit. And also looked at Motorola’s claim construction, to see with which products, and which features exactly Google’s subsidiary thinks Apple infringes.

Here’s what we found:

Patent No. 5,883,580 “Geographic-temporal significant messaging”
This patent, issued on March 16th, 1999 talks about “messaging devices that process messages logically for a user in the context of space and time”. Translated from legalese – it’s about your iPhone being able to display geographically relevant messages when you are at a certain place. E.g. traffic alerts when you are near the congested intersection, ability to schedule reminders when you are approaching your workplace or leaving your home, getting a pop-up to remember to buy some milk when you are in a grocery store, etc;

Patent No. 5,922,047 “Apparatus, method and system for multimedia control and communication”
The ‘047 patent, issued on July 13, 199 is really broad and, according to Motorola, covers such basic device functionality as being able to launch and use any media application, while also being a phone. E.g. tapping on video player icon on iPhone 4S constitutes infringement, because it means that your phone switches to another operating mode (video player) among many (telephone, music player, browser, etc;), in response to a first control signal (tapping on a video icon) and, after video player launches, it is controlled via multiple other control signals – e.g tap to Pause/Play, Fast Forward, etc;

Patent No. 6,425,002 “Apparatus and method for handling dispatching messages for various applications of a communication device”
‘002 patent was issued on July 23, 2002 and covers the API for routing incoming and outgoing messages to the correct applications. Motorola thinks that Apple’s Push Notification functionality, allowing your apps to automatically send and receive push messages, is covered by ththis patent and infringes on it.

Patent No. 6,493,673 “Markup language for interactive services and methods thereof”
This patent, issued on Dec. 10, 2002 covers interactive voice services delivered over the internet, and goes after Siri. Motorola does not care much about the artificial intelligence and all other fancy stuff Siri does. According to the patent claims, Motorola has invented the basic interactive dialog process Siri uses. And the way Apple renders *XML files to allow you talk to Siri, is a no no without a license. “Siri, set a reminder for 2, tomorrow”, “2PM or 2AM”, “2PM” , “OK, setting reminder for 2PM on Wednesday, Aug. 22nd” . Doesn’t matter how Siri figures out what to ask and what to tell you. Simply by performing this dialog, and using a markup language to do it – Siri infringes. Or at least that’s what Motorola claims.

Patent No. 6,983,370 “System for providing continuity between messaging clients and method therefor”
The ‘370 patent, issued on January 3d, 2006 talks about seamless IM session switching between various devices, and says that all iMessage capable devices are infringing on it. Started your iMessage chat on your MacBook, then continued it on the way to work on your iPhone? Google says that the way Apple does this – by storing your chat data on its servers and then transferring the chat data from MacBook to iPhone – is Moto’s invention. This patent is also part of Motorola’s litigation with Microsoft in U.S.

Patent No. 7,007,064 “Method and apparatus for obtaining and managing wirelessly communicated content”
‘064 patent, issued on Feb 28, 2006 goes after e-mail syncing between your Macs and iOS devices via iCloud. It is a rather narrow patent, and only insists that the way Apple keeps your e-mails in sync, by deleting messages on one of your igadgets when you delete that same message on the other, is an infringing use.

Patent No. 7,383,983 “System and method for managing content between devices in various domains”
This patent covers the ability to pause video or audio playback on your iPad, and then resume playing the content from the same place on a different iDevice.

________________________________

None of the patents above are standards essential, so they won’t have to be licensed to Apple under restrictive FRAND terms. And the whole batch, taken together, looks pretty impressive. Motorola also filed a parallel suit with the same patents in District Court of Delaware.

Will they be enough to turn the tide for Google in “Everyone else vs Android” patent wars of this decade? Maybe, maybe not.

At this point in the litigation, it is very difficult to know. We’ll have to wait and see what is left of the patent claims as they are whittled in FCC and Delaware proceedings. After all, Sun/Oracle invented Java. The database giant thought it had a pretty good case claiming that Google ripped them off almost wholesale, demanding billions in damages. But couldn’t prove anything in court. Motorola is seeking a ban in the US on most apple products both released and soon to be released including but not limited to Apple’s iPod Touch, 2, 3, 4, and upcoming 5 the iPhone 3GS, 4, 4S, and upcoming 5 the iPad 2, the “new” iPad, and upcoming iPad mini as well as the Mac Pro, iMac, Mac mini, MacBook Pro and MacBook Air and all other Apple devices which utilize wireless communication technologies to manage various messages and content.

[Ads]

[sparkyscott21]

Back in October we told you that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office had issued a non-final decision declaring 20 claims related to Apple’s rubber-banding patent invalid, as pointed out in Samsung filings with U.S. District Lucy Koh. While Samsung and Apple were back in court yesterday regarding post-trial motions, today FossPatents reported (via MacRumors) the USPTO has issued another non-final ruling declaring yet another Apple multitouch patent invalid.

This time it’s a touchscreen patent, commonly referred to as “the Steve Jobs patent,” that courts have previously deemed valid in cases against Samsung and Motorola in the past:

This week, the USPTO issued a first Office action rejecting all 20 claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,479,949 on a “touch screen device, method, and graphical user interface for determining commands by applying heuristics”, which has been referred to by many people, including Apple’s own lawyers, as “the Steve Jobs patent”.

The touchscreen heuristics ’949 patent has also been asserted against Motorola. Judge Posner declared large parts of the patent invalid and identified only some minor potential infringement on Motorola’s part that he decided would not warrant injunctive relief even if Apple prevailed on whatever little was left of its related claims.

In the build-up to the ultimately canceled trial, Judge Posner had barred Apple from referring to the ’949 patent as “the [Steve] Jobs patent”. Steve Jobs is the first named inventor (of many) of this patent. Many of his 300+ patents are design patents, but among software patents, the ’949 patent is probably the most famous one. The USPTO held an exhibition relating to Steve Jobs’s patents, but now it’s apparently having second thoughts about the most prominent one of them.

12-7-12

9to5mac.com

[sparkyscott21]

FOSS Patents reports that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has issued a notice preliminarily ruling that Apple's massive iPhone patent popularly referred to as "the Steve Jobs patent" invalid in its entirety upon reexamination.

The patent, issued as Patent No. 7,479,949, had been granted in January 2009 and incorporated several prior patent applications dating back to September 2006 before the company publicly unveiled the device. Steve Jobs is listed as the first inventor on the patent, and FOSS Patents notes that it is probably the most famous of the over 300 patents credited at least in part to Jobs.

Some people say that first Office actions are partial because they are based only on submissions made by those challenging the patent, and many examiners like to take a tough position early on in order to enable and require the patentee to present the strongest arguments in favor of validity. But it would be a mistake to underestimate the significance of a first Office action. Also, a complete rejection of all claims of a given patent is potentially more devastating than one affecting only some claims.

Apple has asserted the patent against a number of its competitors, including Samsung and Motorola, and an ultimate finding of invalidity in the reexamination process would substantially weaken Apple's cases against those companies, although it is far from the only weapon in Apple's patent arsenal.

12-7-12

www.macrumors.com