Articles Posted in Intellectual Property

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.

Yesterday, Touchscreen Gestures, LLC filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Google Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas. In its complaint, Touchscreen Gestures, LLC alleged that Google products, including the Nexus One, Galaxy Nexus smartphones and Nexus 7 tablet, infringed the following patents:

• Drag Gesture. U.S. Patent No. 7,184,031 entitled “Method and Controller for Identifying a Drag Gesture.”
• Single Tap Gesture. U.S. Patent No. 7,180,506 entitled “Method for Identifying a Movement of Single Tap on a touch Device.”
• Double Tap Gesture. U.S. Patent No. 7,190,356 entitled “Method and controller for identifying double tap gestures.”
• Scroll Window Screen. U.S. Patent No. 7,319,457 entitled “Method of scrolling window screen by means of controlling electronic device.”

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.

Mary Cesar, the owner of Mary’s Cakes & Pastries in Northport, Alabama, received a cease-and-desist letter last week from Collegiate Licensing Company (CLC) ordering her to stop selling products decorated with the University of Alabama’s trademarks and logos. Specifically, the letter stated she must stop using, “trademarks, names, logos, colors, slogans, mascots, and other indicia associated with the university” with the sale of her baked goods.

However, Cesar states that the university itself, as well as its athletic and legal departments, has placed orders for these very same products. She stated that she thought that the university wouldn’t place such orders if she had been doing something illegally.

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?

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:

InNova Patent Licensing, LLC has filed a lawsuit against Facebook in the Eastern District of Texas for patent infringement. According to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, the patent (6,018,761) is a “system for adding to electronic mail messages information obtained from sources external to the electronic mail transport process.”

Google and AOL were sued for patent infringement Thursday by New Jersey-based Suffolk Technologies, LLC over their Internet search summary descriptions, or ‘snippets.’

Suffolk’s lawsuit also alleges that AOL and Google are infringing a second patent for an “Internet server and method of controlling an internet server”. The second claim alleges that AOL’s Advertising.com ad platform and Google’s AdSense service each infringe this patent. The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District for the Eastern District of Virginia where AOL is based.

Here are more details on the patent lawsuit, and the complaint (below).

Judges know fair use and parody when they see it. Especially when it comes to South Park‘s “distinct animation style and scatological humor” as seen through the eyes of a 4th grade character.

That was the conclusion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit Circuit today (read it below) when it affirmed a trial court judge’s July 2011 decision to dismiss a copyright infringement lawsuit over the viral “What, What (in the Butt)” internet video by the singer Samwell.

Here is why the decision is an important victory for parody, satire, and fair use on the Internet.