David Kemp

Yesterday, the Regents of the University of California and Eolas Technologies, Inc. filed a lawsuit against Facebook in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The suit alleges that Facebook has infringed on four different patents owned by the Regents and to which Eolas has an exclusive license.

Eolas was founded by Dr. Michael D. Doyle, who, according to the company website, previously served as Director for the Center of Knowledge Management at the University of California – San Francisco. During his tenure there, Dr. Doyle reportedly led a team of researchers to develop technology that led to the 5,838,906 patent (“’906 Patent”) entitled “Distributed hypermedia method for automatically invoking external application providing interaction and display of embedded objects within a hypermedia document.” According to the Eolas Technologies website, the patent “enabled Web browsers for the first time to act as platforms for fully-interactive embedded applications.”

The ’906 Patent has been the subject of prior litigation. In 2007, Eolas and the Regents of the University of California were awarded a $565 judgment against Microsoft. The award was stayed on appeal, and the parties subsequently settled for a confidential amount.

Photographer Christopher Boffoli has filed a lawsuit against Twitter in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, claiming infringement of copyrighted photographs. The complaint alleges that “Twitter users copied numerous photographs from the Disparity Series without license or permission from Boffoli . . . . [and] were hosted either on Twitter or on third-party servers.”

Boffoli claims that Twitter could have removed the copyrighted photos from its own servers or “disable[d] each Tweet advertising or linking to” the photographs on its own or third-party servers.

Twitter’s Copyright Policy states that “We will respond to notices of alleged copyright infringement that comply with applicable law and are properly provided to us.” However, according to Boffoli’s complaint, despite repeated requests that Twitter take down the copyrighted materials, “Twitter has not removed or disabled access to the [copyrighted photos].”

On August 31, View 360 Solutions LLC, a subsidiary of Acacia Research Corp., filed a lawsuit against Google, Inc., alleging that Google’s Street View feature infringed on the following patents:

• 6,157,385: “Method of and apparatus for performing perspective transformation of visible stimuli”
• 6,323,862: “Apparatus for generating and interactively viewing spherical image data and memory thereof”
• 6,243,099: “Method for interactive viewing full-surround image data and apparatus therefor”
• 6,731,284: “Method of and apparatus for performing perspective transformation of visible stimuli”
• 8,077,176: “Method for interactively viewing full-surround image data and apparatus therefor”
• 7,542,035: “Method for interactively viewing full-surround image data and apparatus therefor”
• 6,252,603: “Processes for generating spherical image data sets and products made thereby”
• 6,271,853: “Method for generating and interactively viewing spherical image data”

The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York and seeks damages, injunctions against Google’s continued use of the alleged patents.

On August 29, Multimedia Patent Trust (“MPT”) filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Apple in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. The patent at issue is U.S. Patent No. 5,500,678, entitled “Optimized Scanning of Transform Coefficients in Video Coding.” In essence, the patent describes a method of digital video compression.

The complaint first alleges that several of Apple’s products, including the iPhone 4S, iPad 2, and the “new iPad” encode video in a way that infringes on MPT’s ‘678 patent. Second, MPT alleges that a handful of Apple software uses the patented methodology “by virtue of the manner in which they encode video.” The third allegation of infringement focuses on the Apple computers as a whole, naming the virtually all current and recent lines of the company’s computers, including the Mac Mini, Mac Pro, MacBook, MacBook Pro, and MacBook Air.

Blue Spike, LLC filed a patent infringement lawsuit yesterday in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas naming 22 defendants, including Facebook. Blue Spike is a technology company owned by self-described inventor and steganographer Scott Moscowitz.

Yesterday, a Northern California jury announced their verdict in one of the most highly anticipated decisions of the high technology era: Samsung must pay Apple $1.05 billion in damages for patent infringement.

In that case, Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., both companies alleged numerous patent infringements by the other company. The jury’s verdict clearly indicates that it believed Samsung, not Apple, was the in the wrong here. So what happens next?

Last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled in Teesdale v. City of Chicago that a city’s legal argument in a civil proceeding does not constitute its official policy.

One of the threshold questions before a person or entity may sue another in federal court is one of judicial standing. When the person or entity is suing for prospective relief—that is, a court order preventing a harm that has not yet occurred, the threshold is particularly high. Under the Supreme Court case City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, a plaintiff seeking prospective relief must show that he or she is in immediate danger of sustaining some direct injury as the result of the challenged conduct, and the injury or threat of injury must be “real and immediate,” not “conjectural” or “hypothetical.” In Teesdale, the court found that Teesdale did not meet the standing requirement and thus could not go forward with his case against the City of Chicago.

On Wednesday, New York City unveiled a new surveillance system powered by Microsoft that would provide near-real-time analysis of camera footage across the city. In its press release, the City boasts that the system features “the latest crime prevention and counterterrorism technology.” The security-minded among us may cheer this development as providing heightened protections against terrorism and other planned acts of violence, but for those of us who are more interested in privacy, this announcement reeks of “Big Brother.”

H-W Technology LC is suing Apple and 31 other companies for alleged patent infringement. It is not the first time this nearly unknown company has sued technology companies. The complaint alleges that the 32 companies violated Patent Number 7,525,955, which is described as “Internet protocol (IP) phone with search and advertising capability.”

The case was originally filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas in late March of last year. On July 27, 2012, the judge issued an order severing the complaint against Apple, finding that the company was improperly joined as a defendant. Instead of dismissing the claim altogether, as Apple requested, the judge transferred the complaint against Apple to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Other Resources:

Last week, Sprint filed several requests for the issuance of subpoenas in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The purpose of the subpoenas, according to the declarations accompanying them, is to reveal the identity of one who identifies him/herself as a ‘mole’ or insider in the company who may be violating Sprint’s copyright. The mystery mole has a Gmail account, as well as accounts on Facebook and Twitter, and Sprint has requested that the court subpoena all three companies.

The mystery mole purports to leak inside information “from deep within the enterprise,” though the logo on each of its pages contains nearly illegible text that says “Not affiliated w/ SprintNextel.”

The cases are Sprint Spectrum L.P. et al v. Facebook Inc., Sprint Spectrum L.P. et al v. Google Inc., and Sprint Spectrum L.P. et al v. Twitter, Inc.