'lawsuit' Articles

Apple Files $2M+ Lawsuit Against Counterfeiter, Finds 90% of 'Genuine' Accessories on Amazon Are Knockoffs

Apple has filed a lawsuit against Mobile Star LLC, accusing the firm of infringing upon its registered trademarks and copyrights by selling counterfeit 5W USB Power Adapters and Lightning to USB cables on Amazon and Groupon, according to court documents published electronically this week. Apple said the counterfeit power products pose a significant danger to consumer safety because, among other things, they lack adequate insulation and/or have inadequate spacing between low voltage and high voltage circuits, creating risks of overheating, fire, and electrical shock.The safety of Apple’s customers is of paramount importance to Apple, and Apple devotes significant resources to ensuring its power products meet industry safety standards and are subjected to rigorous testing for safety and reliability. Apple brings this suit to stop Mobile Star from any further distribution of counterfeit Apple products to the public.The legal complaint says the products, shipped and sold by Amazon through its Fulfilled by Amazon program, were listed as genuine Apple products, often using the company's copyrighted marketing images. Apple said Mobile Star's counterfeit products hurt its sales and damage its reputation. Apple determined at least a portion of Mobile Star LLC's chargers and cables were counterfeit upon purchasing them as part of its routine efforts to combat the distribution and sale of knockoff products. It then alerted Amazon, which subsequently removed Mobile Star's selling privileges. Takedown notices are standard procedure for Apple, which found that almost 90% of

Apple Set to Battle Class Action Lawsuit Over Labor Code Violations Starting Tomorrow

A class action lawsuit filed by four former Apple retail employees over alleged California Labor Code violations commences tomorrow in San Diego Superior Court. A civil jury trial is scheduled to begin Tuesday at 9:00 a.m. local time in a courtroom presided over by the Honorable Eddie C. Sturgeon, nearly two years after Apple's appeal and motion for dismissal was denied in the case. The lawsuit, titled Felczer vs. Apple Inc., falls under the court's Department 67. The lawsuit, originally filed in 2011 and elevated to class action status in 2014, accuses Apple of failing to provide timely meal and rest breaks, failing to pay all wages due upon ending employment within the required time, and failing to provide accurate wage statements, according to court documents filed electronically. The proposed class would involve all current, former, or prospective employees in California who have worked for Apple between December 16, 2007 and the time of trial, which totaled approximately 18,000 employees as of 2014. Any settlement awarded would be divided evenly between class members. California Labor Code dictates that employees must be provided with at least a 30-minute meal break when the work period is more than five hours, and at least a 10-minute rest break for every four hours worked. The defendants claim Apple failed to always provide these breaks for at least four years prior to the lawsuit. Meanwhile, the complaint notes Apple took several weeks to send out a final paycheck to multiple employees. As a result of these unlawful business practices, the lawsuit

Three More Law Firms Join Class Action Lawsuit Against Apple Over iPhone 6 'Touch Disease'

Three additional law firms have joined a class action lawsuit against Apple over an alleged defect that causes iPhone 6 Plus touchscreens to become unresponsive and fail. Back in August, reports began appearing from iPhone 6 owners describing an apparently latent manufacturing issue that causes a flickering bar to appear at the top of the screen and the display to become unresponsive or less responsive to touch. A week later, three iPhone 6 owners filed a complaint with the U.S. District Court of Northern California after their devices presented symptoms of the problem – dubbed "touch disease" by repair website iFixit – which Apple has yet to publicly acknowledge. Yesterday, Motherboard reported that lawyers who filed the class action complaint earlier this fall have now signed on three additional law firms to support their case, while an additional class action lawsuit related to the issue has been filed against Apple in Utah. Richard McCune, an attorney in the California case, said he has been contacted by 10,000 people asking to join the suit, which accuses Apple of violating the state's consumer fraud statutes, negligent misrepresentation, breach of implied warranty, unjust enrichment, and other consumer act violations. The "touch disease" flaw is thought to be caused by the touchscreen controller chips soldered to the iPhone's logic board losing contact after a period of normal usage, because of Apple's failure to incorporate a metal shield. So far, Apple has refused to repair the out-of-warranty iPhones without charge when the defect manifests.

Samsung Owes Apple $120 Million in Longstanding Slide-to-Unlock Lawsuit

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has reinstated Apple's $119.6 million award in a longstanding patent lawsuit with Samsung, after eight of twelve judges ruled it was wrong to throw out the verdict in February.The bulk of the award, $98.7 million, was for the detection patent that the earlier panel said wasn’t infringed. The February decision also said the other two patents were invalid. […] That was a wrong decision, the court ruled Friday, because it relied on issues that were never raised on appeal or on information that was beyond the trial record.The long-running lawsuit dates back to 2011, when Apple accused Samsung of infringing upon its now-retired slide-to-unlock feature, autocorrect, and a method of detecting phone numbers so they can be tapped to make phone calls, according to Bloomberg. The case is not to be confused with a similar Apple v. Samsung lawsuit related to accusations of older Galaxy smartphones infringing upon the iPhone's design. The appeals court will argue that second case, also dating back to 2011, on Tuesday to determine how much Samsung should pay for copying the look and feel of the iPhone, according to the report. Samsung was originally ordered to pay Apple damages of $548 million, but it appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court in December as a last-ditch effort to avoid paying the settlement. In August, over 100 world-renowned designers, including Calvin Klein, Dieter Rams, and Norman Foster, filed an amicus brief in support of Apple in the lawsuit. The designers argued that a product's visual design has "powerful effects

Apple Ordered to Pay $22 Million to Patent Firm Acacia Research

A federal jury in Tyler, Texas has ordered Apple to pay $22.1 million to patent firm Acacia Research for violating U.S. Patent No. 8,055,820, related to cellular network technologies, according to court documents filed electronically this week. The monetary award is a running royalty for Apple's infringement through March 2016. The jury said Apple did not prove with clear and convincing evidence that any asserted claims of the patent are invalid as obvious or based on improper inventorship. Apple's infringement was found to be willful, which in patent litigation means the patent holder can request that the judge enhance the damages by up to three times, or up to roughly $66.4 million in this particular lawsuit. The lawsuit, filed in January 2014, accused Apple of selling multiple products that infringe upon the patent, including the iPhone 5, iPhone 5c, iPhone 5s, iPad 3, iPad 4, iPad Air, iPad mini, and iPad mini 2. U.S. Patent No. 8,055,820, titled "apparatus, system, and method for designating a buffer status reporting format based on detected pre-selected buffer conditions," is highly technical and at one point was assigned to Nokia. AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, T-Mobile, and Boost Mobile were also named as defendants for selling the infringing iPhones, but none of the carriers were named in the jury verdict. U.S. Magistrate Judge K. Nicole Mitchell presided over the case in the U.S. District Court for Eastern Texas, a popular region for non-practicing entities like Acacia Research and VirnetX to bring patent litigation against companies like Apple. Acacia

Apple Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Unresponsive iPhone 6 Touchscreens

Thomas Davidson of Pennsylvania, Todd Cleary of California, and Jun Bai of Delaware have filed a class action lawsuit against Apple over an alleged defect that causes iPhone 6 and iPhone 6 Plus touchscreens to become unresponsive and fail, according to court documents filed electronically this week. The class action complaint, filed with the U.S. District Court for Northern California, accuses Apple of violating California's consumer fraud statutes, through fraud, negligent misrepresentation, breach of implied warranty, unjust enrichment, and for violations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.Apple has long been aware of the defective iPhones. Yet, notwithstanding its longstanding knowledge of this design defect, Apple routinely has refused to repair the iPhones without charge when the defect manifests. Many other iPhone owners have communicated with Apple's employees and agents to request that Apple remedy and/or address the Touchscreen Defect and/or resultant damage at no expense. Apple has failed and/or refused to do so. As a result of Apple’s unfair, deceptive and/or fraudulent business practices, owners of the iPhones, including Plaintiffs, have suffered an ascertainable loss of money and/or property and/or value. The unfair and deceptive trade practices committed by Apple were conducted in a manner giving rise to substantial aggravating circumstances.The complaint, lodged by California law firm McCuneWright, LLP, seeks an order that requires Apple to repair, recall, and/or replace affected iPhones and to extend the

Apple Dragged Into Lawsuit Involving Singer Ariana Grande

Canadian songwriter and producer Alex Greggs, who has worked with several renowned artists such as Beyoncé, Lady Gaga, Justin Timberlake, and the late Michael Jackson, is suing Apple in a larger lawsuit filed against singer Ariana Grande, electronic artist David Guetta, publisher Universal Music Group, and others, according to court documents filed electronically this week. Greggs claims that Grande's single "One Last Time" from 2014 infringes upon the 2011 single "Takes All Night" by Skye Stevens, said to be the subject of a valid pending U.S. copyright registration in Gregg's name. He added that the defendants had access to "Takes All Night" before composing "One Last Time," and that it's "highly likely" the songs were not created independently of one another.Skye Stephens performed the song on tour and in live performances at festivals and in clubs throughout the United States and Canada in particular, and also appeared on numerous radio shows, in addition to promoting the song through social media. Moreover, the similarity between Takes All Night and One Last Time is so striking that it is highly likely the works were not created independently of one another.Greggs accuses Apple, as the operator of iTunes, of failing to verify that Grande and the other defendants had reached copyright and synchronization license agreements, and other contractual agreements, with him prior to releasing "One Last Time" as a digital download on iTunes and for streaming on Apple Music. He filed a similar claim against Universal Music Group as distributor of the single. Songwriter

Apple Sued Over iPhone's Proximity Sensor in New Patent Troll Lawsuit

511 Innovations, Inc. is the latest patent troll to file a complaint against Apple with the U.S. District Court for Eastern Texas, claiming that the iPhone's proximity sensor infringes upon five of its patents. The asserted patents¹, filed between 1999 and 2012, relate to various methods for measuring optical characteristics of an object, such as color spectrums, translucence, gloss, and position detection. 511 Innovations is a Texas-based non-practicing entity that does not appear to sell any sensor-related products, but instead seeks to enforce its patented technologies through litigation. Eastern Texas is a common district for patent holding firms to target larger companies like Apple, which has fought similar lawsuits from VirnetX, Dot 23, VoIP-Pal, and others in recent years. The small firm acquired the asserted patents in 2013 from JJL Technologies, which claims to have sold world market-leading spectrophotometers, according to court documents filed electronically this week. It then licensed the patents to Spectral Sensors, whose website has been "under construction" since 2013. Further complicating things, JJL Technologies had acquired the patents itself from LJ Laboratories. 511 Innovations has demanded a jury trial and is seeking damages in the form of a reasonable royalty, plus interest and fees, in addition to a permanent U.S. sales ban on iPhones and all other infringing products and services. Legal battles of this nature can prove costly. Last month, Apple agreed to license Cover Flow- and Time Machine-related patents from Mirror World

Dieter Rams and Over 100 Top Designers Support Apple in Longstanding Samsung Lawsuit

Calvin Klein, Dieter Rams, Norman Foster, and over 100 of the world's leading design professionals have filed a lengthy amicus brief [PDF] in support of Apple in an over five year old patent lawsuit against rival Samsung. Apple was awarded nearly $1 billion in damages in 2012 after Samsung was found to have copied the "look and feel" of the iPhone, but a significant part of the decision was reversed in 2015, leaving Samsung owing $548 million -- a sum that Samsung has paid but continues to appeal. The patent lawsuit began back in 2011 and has since made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, where Apple is fighting for it to remain. The design professionals, which have collectively provided services to Apple, American Airlines, Coca-Cola, Ford, General Electric, GM, Google, IBM, Knoll, Lenovo, LG, Louis Vuitton, NASA, Nike, Polaroid, Porsche, Starbucks, Target, Xerox, and even Samsung itself, among others, believe that Apple is entitled to all profits that Samsung has earned from copying patented designs. The designers argued that a product's visual design has "powerful effects on the human mind and decision making processes," citing a 1949 study that showed more than 99% of Americans could identify a bottle of Coca-Cola by shape alone. The amicus brief further states that "successful technology companies use design to differentiate themselves from

Apple Countersues Caltech and Settles With Dot 23 in Patent Lawsuits

Apple and Broadcom have jointly filed counterclaims against the California Institute of Technology in an ongoing Wi-Fi-related lawsuit, denying any alleged infringement of the technologies and urging the court to invalidate the asserted patents, according to court documents filed electronically this week. Apple argued that Caltech did not file the lawsuit until May 26, 2016, more than six years after the publication of the 802.11n wireless standard, and thereby the time limit to collect damages has passed under U.S. law. It also argued that Caltech does not make, use, or sell any product that practices any claim of the asserted patents. Caltech's patents, granted between 2006 and 2012, are highly technical and relate to IRA codes that utilize simpler encoding and decoding circuitry for improved data transmission rates and performance. The technologies are implemented in both the 802.11n and 802.11ac Wi-Fi standards used by many Apple products. The asserted patents include U.S. Patent No. 7,116,710, U.S. Patent No. 7,421,032, U.S. Patent No. 7,916,781, and U.S. Patent No. 8,284,833. In a May 2016 court filing with the U.S. District Court for Central California, Caltech accused Apple of selling various Mac, iPhone, iPad, and Apple Watch models, along with other Wi-Fi products, that incorporate those IRA/LDPC encoders and/or decoders and thereby infringe upon the four asserted patents in question. Apple provided a series of other defenses, including Caltech's failure to disclose prior art, which is any information or evidence that might be relevant to a

Apple Urges Supreme Court Not to Send Samsung Case Back to Lower Court

Apple has urged the U.S. Supreme Court to rule against Samsung's request to send a longstanding patent lawsuit between the two companies back to lower court for further proceedings, reports Reuters. Apple told the court that its South Korean rival has "no evidence" that design patent damages should be based on anything less than the value of an entire smartphone, according to court documents filed on Friday. The Supreme Court agreed to hear Samsung's case in December. Samsung argued that it has been hit with "excessive penalties" for allegedly copying the design of the iPhone. The company claims that the penalties were unfair because Apple was awarded damages from the total profits of the product, while the infringing patent only applied to a component of the smartphone rather than the whole device. Apple was awarded nearly $1 billion in damages in 2012, but a significant part of the decision was reversed in 2015, leaving Samsung owing $548 million. Samsung has already paid the $548 million, but could win its money back if the ruling is overturned. The patent lawsuit dates back to

Dutch Court Orders Apple to Replace Customer's Broken iPhone With New, Not Refurbished, Model

A judge in Amsterdam has ruled in favor of a Dutch woman [Google Translate] who sued Apple for refusing to replace her broken iPhone 6 Plus with a new model, and instead offering her a refurbished model as per its standard policy. The court nullified the purchase agreement and ordered Apple to refund the woman the full €799 that she paid for the iPhone, which was purchased in December 2014 and stopped functioning nine months later in August 2015. Apple being ordered to refund the purchase price plus interest and pay all of the woman's legal fees was specific to this case, but it is the precedent that could be set in the Netherlands and possibly elsewhere that is more important. Apple's standard one-year limited warranty and extended AppleCare+ policies for iPhone in both the Netherlands and the U.S., and most other countries, explicitly state that repairs or exchanges may involve devices or parts that are either new or "equivalent to new in performance and reliability," otherwise known as refurbished. It is common practice for Apple to replace defective iPhones with a refurbished model consisting of both new and recycled parts, and only rarely does the company provide a brand new replacement on a case-by-case situation. The court's decision in Amsterdam, however, could force Apple to change its policies. The court filing in the Netherlands does not indicate if Apple plans to appeal the decision, but it would not be unprecedented for the company to exhaust all avenues in an effort to overturn the ruling. Apple has not publicly commented on the matter. In

Apple Faces Patent Lawsuit Over iPhone's Battery Technologies

Somaltus, LLC has filed a complaint against Apple today in an Eastern Texas district court, accusing the iPhone maker of infringing upon its 2010 patent related to complex battery technologies. The small Frisco, Texas-based firm also filed lawsuits against Asus, Lenovo, Samsung, Sony, and Toshiba over the same patent. The lawsuit claims that the iPhone 6s and any similar devices sold by Apple infringe upon U.S. Patent No. 7,657,386, titled "Integrated Battery Service System," and seeks unspecified monetary damages or, alternatively, a running royalty on sales of infringing devices from the time of judgment going forward.Defendant sells, offers to sell, and/or uses telephones including, without limitation, the iPhone 6s (the "Product"), for example, and any similar devices, which infringe at least Claim 1 of the ‘386 Patent. On information and belief, the Product includes a battery service system including a processor (e.g., the A9 chip), which is configured to receive signals from connectors coupled to a battery (e.g., the Product's rechargeable lithium-ion battery).Specifically, it appears that the infringement claim at least partially relates to the iPhone's process of charging in fast-charge mode until the battery reaches 80% capacity, and then adjusting to trickle-charge mode above 80% capacity.On information and belief, the processor executes the control codes to continually adjust a charge level to the battery. The Product has a charging system according to which the system operates in fast-charge mode until the battery reaches 80% capacity and then adjusts

Pennsylvania Man Sues Apple Over Web Carousel Use

Pennsylvania resident Samuel Lit has hit Apple with a lawsuit claiming that the company infringed on his patent for web carousels, according to documents filed in the Northern Illinois District Court (via AppleInsider). Apple's website typically features a homepage with a carousel containing four to five windows displaying its products. Lit owns U.S. Patent No. 8,793,330, which is a "system and method for displaying graphics, art, text, animation, video and other content." It's described as a "three-dimensional 'Display Carousel' system" that can cycle through its windows in a rotating manner that makes it look like a carousel at a predetermined speed. The lawsuit claims that Apple's website, which also has a system that cycles through windows in a rotating manner at a predetermined speed, infringes some or all of the 20 claims of the patent. Some of Apple's infringements on Claim 16 include having a "system for displaying content," a "display carousel embedded" into the website, a display engine to deliver the carousel content when its on a web browser, and a database to track how many customers purchase things linked from the carousel. Lit is seeking "reasonable" royalties with interest. While Lit is a radio broadcaster, he used to work with software systems and engines for Hy Lit Radio Technologies, which was named after his father Hy Lit, another radio broadcaster. He previously attempted to monetize his patent via a website called but the site shut down in

Florida Man Sues Apple for $10+ Billion, Says iOS Devices Copy His 1992 Drawings

Florida resident Thomas S. Ross has filed a lawsuit against Apple this week, claiming that the iPhone, iPad, and iPod infringe upon his 1992 invention of a hand-drawn "Electronic Reading Device" (ERD). The court filing claims the plaintiff was "first to file a device so designed and aggregated," nearly 15 years before the first iPhone. Between May 23, 1992 and September 10, 1992, Ross designed three hand-drawn technical drawings of the device, primarily consisting of flat rectangular panels with rounded corners that "embodied a fusion of design and function in a way that never existed prior to 1992."What Ross contemplated, was a device that could allow one to read stories, novels, news articles, as well as look at pictures, watch video presentations, or even movies, on a flat touch-screen that was back-lit. He further imagined that it could include communication functions, such as a phone and a modem, input/output capability, so as to allow the user to write notes, and be capable of storing reading and writing material utilizing internal and external storage media. He also imagined that the device would have batteries and even be equipped with solar panels.Ross applied for a utility patent to protect his invention in November 1992, but the application was declared abandoned in April 1995 by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office after he failed to pay the required application fees. He also filed to copyright his technical drawings with the U.S. Copyright Office in 2014. While the plaintiff claims that he continues to experience "great and irreparable injury that

U.S. Department of Justice Urges Supreme Court to Send Apple vs. Samsung Case Back to Lower Court

The United States Department of Justice today urged the Supreme Court to overturn an appeals court ruling that was in Apple's favor and send the Apple vs. Samsung case back to trial court, reports Reuters. The DoJ submitted an amicus brief on Samsung's behalf as the Supreme Court prepares to hear the long-running Apple vs. Samsung case. Apple's dispute with Samsung made its way to the Supreme Court after the U.S. Federal Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Samsung's final lower court appeal in August of 2015. Samsung's last option was to ask the Supreme Court to hear the case, which it did in December. Despite Apple's efforts to get the Supreme Court to deny Samsung's request, the court agreed to hear Samsung's appeal. Samsung, which claims it has been hit with "excessive penalties" for allegedly copying the design of the iPhone, submitted its opening brief to the Supreme Court yesterday. Samsung claims that the penalties were unfair because Apple was awarded damages from the total profits of the product, while the infringing patent only applied to a component of the smartphone rather than the whole device. This is the issue that the Supreme Court will examine.In its amicus brief on Wednesday, the Justice Department said it was unclear whether Samsung had produced enough evidence to support its argument that phone components, not the entire phone, should be what matters when calculating damages. The Supreme Court should send the case back for the trial court to determine whether a new trial is warranted on that issue, the Justice Department said.Samsung has

Apple Closer to Escaping $533 Million Verdict Won by Smartflash LLC

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on May 26 invalidated two of three patents owned by Smartflash LLC, a patent licensing firm that was awarded a $532.9 million verdict against Apple in February 2015, according to Bloomberg.A three-judge panel at the patent agency found that the two patents never should have been issued in the first place because the idea of storing and paying for data is an abstract concept, not a specific invention.A third patent owned by Smartflash LLC was also invalidated in late March, increasing the odds that Apple will not have to pay the large sum. Smartflash LLC, which fits the description of a patent troll, can still ask the Patent Trial and Appeal Board to reconsider and file an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Last year, a federal jury for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas found certain iTunes apps to be infringing upon Smartflash LLC's patents, related to digital rights management, data storage, and managing access through payment systems. Apple appealed the decision, arguing that the patents were invalid. Smartflash LLC also targeted Samsung and Google with similar patent infringement

Caltech Accuses Apple of Violating its Patented Wi-Fi Technologies

Apple and Broadcom have been jointly named as defendants in a legal complaint filed by the California Institute of Technology last week over alleged infringement of its various patented Wi-Fi-related technologies. Caltech's patents, granted between 2006 and 2012, are highly technical and relate to IRA/LDPC codes that utilize simpler encoding and decoding circuitry for improved data transmission rates and performance. The technologies are implemented in both the 802.11n and 802.11ac Wi-Fi standards used by many Apple products. In the court filing with the U.S. District Court for Central California, Caltech accused Apple of selling various iPhone, iPad, Mac, and Apple Watch models, along with other Wi-Fi products, that incorporate these IRA/LDPC encoders and/or decoders and thereby infringe upon the four asserted patents in question.Apple manufactures, uses, imports, offers for sale, and/or sells Wi-Fi products that incorporate IRA/LDPC encoders and/or decoders and infringe the Asserted Patents. Apple products that incorporate IRA/LDPC encoders and/or decoders and infringe the Asserted Patents include, but are not limited to, the following: iPhone SE, iPhone 6s, iPhone 6s Plus, iPhone 6, iPhone 6 Plus, iPhone 5c, iPhone 5s, iPhone 5, iPad Air, iPad Air 2, iPad Pro, iPad Mini 4, iPad Mini 3, iPad Mini 2, MacBook Air [and] Apple Watch.Apple has at least temporarily pulled stock of its AirPort Extreme and Time Capsule Wi-Fi base stations from its U.S. stores, but it's unclear if the move is related. Broadcom, as one of Apple's main suppliers of Wi-Fi chips, is also

'Error 53' Plaintiffs Criticize Apple's Reimbursement Effort, Aim to Keep Lawsuit Alive

In February, Seattle-based law firm Pfau Cochran Vertetis Amala (PCVA) brought a class action lawsuit against Apple over the "Error 53" bug, which bricked iPhone 6 models with select third-party components. Apple quickly responded, confirming the error and issuing an updated version of iOS 9.2.1 to fix the error. Earlier this month, Apple moved to dismiss an amended version of the class action lawsuit. However, PCVA and the plaintiffs have now moved to keep the lawsuit alive, according to AppleInsider. Apple argued the lawsuit should be dismissed because the company issued a fix for the error and offered to reimburse customers who had paid to have their devices replaced or repaired. However, the plaintiffs are now arguing that Apple failed to properly alert users to the reimbursement program. They argue the "vague" announcement on Apple's website and a support document published in April isn't sufficient enough to inform affected customers. The plaintiffs also claim having trouble in getting touch with Apple about reimbursement, with one plaintiff claiming they were never sent a reimbursement notice and another saying they were disconnected from Apple support twice when trying to contact the Cupertino company about the program. The controversy first started in February, when users who had their iPhone 6 models repaired by third-party technicians were seeing the mysterious "Error 53" that bricked their phones. The error showed up when devices had parts replaced with components not sourced from the original device, with the not-matching components affecting the To

Apple Hit With $2.8 Billion Patent Lawsuit Over VoIP Technology

VoIP-Pal announced today that it has filed a lawsuit against Apple in a U.S. District Court in Las Vegas, Nevada, seeking over $2.8 billion in damages for alleged infringement of its patented internet communication technologies. The Bellevue-based company calculated its $2,836,710,031 figure using a 1.25-percent royalty rate based on an apportionment of Apple's estimated historical profit from iPhone (55-percent), iPad (35-percent), and Mac (10-percent). VoIP-Pal (VPLM) has over a dozen issued or pending patents, primarily related to VoIP technologies, a few of which it accuses Apple of infringing upon with services like FaceTime and iMessage on iPhone, iPad, and Mac.Apple employs VPLM’s innovative technology and products, features, and designs, and has widely distributed infringing products that have undermined VPLM’s marketing efforts. Instead of pursuing independent product development, Apple employed VPLM’s innovative caller attribute classification and routing product design, in violation of VPLM’s valuable intellectual property rights.The court filing cites multiple ways that Apple is allegedly infringing upon the patents, including the following iMessage claim:In particular, devices running the iMessage application initiate a communication between a caller and a callee. The callee may be an Apple subscriber or a non-subscriber. In the case that the callee is an Apple subscriber, the communication is sent using iMessage. On the other hand, if the user is not an Apple subscriber or if iMessage is not available, the communication is sent using SMS/MMS. Apple’s