lawsuit


'lawsuit' Articles

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

Immersion Files Second Haptic Feedback Lawsuit Against Apple

Immersion, a company that develops and licenses haptic touch feedback technology, today filed a second lawsuit against Apple and AT&T, accusing the MacBook and MacBook Pro of violating one patent and the iPhone 6s of violating three additional patents not mentioned in the original lawsuit. According to Immersion, iPhone 6s and MacBook features like 3D Touch and the Force Touch trackpad infringe on its intellectual property. The four patents included in today's lawsuit are as follows: - U.S. Patent No. 8,749,507: "Systems and Methods for Adaptive Interpretation of Input from a Touch-Sensitive Input Device" - U.S. Patent No. 7,808,488: "Method and Apparatus for Providing Tactile Sensations" - U.S. Patent No. 8,581,710: "Systems and Methods for Haptic Confirmation of Commands" - U.S. Patent No. 7,336,260: "Method and Apparatus for Providing Tactile Sensations" The fourth patent is the one that Immersion accuses the MacBook, the 13-inch MacBook Pro, and the 15-inch MacBook Pro of violating, and AT&T, while named in the iPhone 6s claim, is not named in the MacBook infringement claim. According to Immersion, the Force Touch trackpad built into these products uses haptic feedback technology belonging to Immersion. Apple's Force Touch trackpad utilizes haptic feedback to mimic the feeling of pressing on a physical button. The trackpad is able to distinguish between a light press and a harder press, with the pressure-sensitivity used to enable different gestures. In the original lawsuit filed in February of 2016, Immersion accused Apple and AT&T of

Apple to Pay $450 Million E-Book Settlement After Supreme Court Declines to Hear Appeal

Apple will have to pay a $450 million settlement in the protracted e-books antitrust case, which saw the company found guilty of conspiring with publishers to inflate the prices of e-books back in 2014 (via Bloomberg). In October, Apple submitted an appeal to overturn the guilty ruling, but today the United States Supreme Court declined to question the verdict, meaning Apple must now comply with that 2014 settlement. Specifically, the amount will be broken down to have $400 million paid out to e-book customers, $20 million to the states, and $30 million in the form of legal fees. The case saw Apple fighting an accusation that in 2010 it colluded with five publishers -- HarperCollins, Simon and Schuster, Hachette Book Group, Macmillan, and Penguin -- to fix the prices of e-books in order to become a dominant presence in a market overshadowed by companies like Amazon. Apple has maintained its innocence throughout the initial trial and subsequent appeals, arguing that its deals helped introduce a healthy degree of competition to a market that had been bordering on a monopoly controlled by Amazon. A group of authors submitted an amicus brief supporting such a statement back in December. At the Supreme Court, Apple argued that its actions enhanced competition by providing consumers with a new e-book platform. The company said overall e-book prices have fallen in the years since the introduction of iBookstore. “Following Apple’s entry, output increased, overall prices decreased, and a major new retailer began to compete in a market formerly dominated by a single

Apple Loses Appeal in Samsung Case: Two Patents Ruled Invalid, $120 Million Verdict Overturned

The long-running dispute between Apple and Samsung continues, with an appeals court today handing the Cupertino-based company a defeat by invalidating two Apple patents and ruling a third had not been infringed by Samsung (via Bloomberg). The ruling, which covers Apple patents related to slide-to-unlock, autocorrect, and interactive phone number features, also threw out the original $119.6 million in damages Apple had been awarded in the case. In addition, Apple's guilty verdict from nearly two years ago has been upheld: the company still has to pay $158,400 for violating Samsung's patent describing an "apparatus for recording and reproducing digital image and speech." Regarding the three operating system features Apple attempted to validate, the court ruled that Apple's claim for Samsung's patent infringement was "invalid."In this case, Apple claimed that Samsung infringed patents for the slide-to-unlock feature, autocorrect and a way to detect phone numbers that can then be touched to make phone calls. The autocorrect patent is invalid and the detection patent wasn’t infringed, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said in an opinion posted on its electronic docket. The court upheld the jury’s verdict that two other Apple patents, for universal search and background syncing, weren’t infringed. In a separate court battle over patent infringements, last December Samsung decided to submit an appeal to the Supreme Court in one final effort to avoid paying $548 million to Apple. Just this month, Apple attempted to convince the Supreme Court to deny Samsung's

Apple Facing Class Action Lawsuit Over 'Error 53' iPhone 6 Bricking

Seattle-based law firm Pfau Cochran Vertetis Amala (PCVA) today followed through with plans to bring a class action lawsuit against Apple over the "Error 53" controversy that made headlines last week. "Error 53" is the error code that some iPhone 6 owners have received after third-party repairs that affect Touch ID were made to their iPhones, rendering the devices unusable. As explained by iFixit, repairs made by third-party services using components not sourced from the original device cause the iPhone to fail a Touch ID validation check because the mismatched parts are unable to properly sync. Parts that can impact Touch ID include the screen, flex cable, and Home button. When this Touch ID validation check fails during an iOS update or restore, Apple disables the iPhone, effectively "bricking" it in an effort to protect Touch ID and the related Secure Enclave that stores customer fingerprint information. Apple says that without the validation check, a malicious Touch ID sensor could be used to gain access to the Secure Enclave. PCVA attorney Darrell Cochran, who is leading the Error 53 lawsuit, claims that Apple's security argument is invalid because affected iPhones often work fine for several months following repairs as the validation check only occurs when downloading a new version of iOS. He also cites Apple's failure to give a warning about the consequence of an update as an issue that will be featured in the lawsuit."No materials we've seen from Apple ever show a disclosure that your phone would self-destruct if you download new software onto a phone,"

Haptic Feedback Company Immersion Files Patent Infringement Lawsuit Against Apple

Immersion, a company that develops and licenses haptic touch feedback technology, today filed a lawsuit against Apple and AT&T accusing the two companies of patent infringement. Citing technologies like 3D Touch, Force Touch, the Apple Watch Taptic Engine, and vibration patterns for ringtones and notifications, Immersion says multiple Apple devices use its intellectual property. According to Immersion, the iPhone 6, 6s, 6 Plus, 6s Plus, Apple Watch, Apple Watch Sport, and Apple Watch Edition infringe on several Immersion patents that cover haptic feedback systems. Immersion says all of the above listed devices infringe on two patents related to tactile sensations: - U.S. Patent No. 8,619,051: "Haptic Feedback System with Stored Effects" - U.S. Patent No. 8,773,356: "Method and Apparatus for Providing Tactile Sensations" The iPhone 6s and iPhone 6s Plus are further accused of infringing on an additional patent, U.S. Patent No. 8,659,571, titled "Interactivity Model for Shared Feedback on Mobile Devices.""Immersion and its employees have worked diligently for over 20 years to invent solutions and build an ecosystem of content and playback devices that enable realistic and rich digital experiences. Touch matters, as it informs, excites and humanizes the digital world we interact with every day. Many of our licensed customers are market leaders that benefit from our innovation in touch technology," said Immersion's CEO Victor Viegas. "While we are pleased to see others in the industry recognize the value of haptics and adopt it in their products, it is

Biometric Sensor Company Valencell Accuses Apple of Stealing Technology for Apple Watch

Biometric sensor company Valencell today filed a lawsuit against Apple (via AppleInsider), accusing the Cupertino-based company of patent infringement, deceptive trade practices, and breach of contract, all related to dealings Apple had with Valencell before the launch of the Apple Watch. According to Valencell, Apple expressed interest in its PerformTek heart rate sensor technology starting in 2013, leading Valencell to believe Apple would license PerformTek technology for the Apple Watch's heart rate sensor. Apple met with Valencell in 2013 and late 2014 to discuss incorporating PerformTek-powered features into the Apple Watch and is said to have expressed "great interest" in Valencell's wrist-based heart rate-sensing technology. Valencell demonstrated a prototype PerformTek-powered watch in 2013 to 15 Apple employees and later sent Apple PerformTek products to test and examine in detail. Valencell believes Apple deceptively solicited technical information and know-how under the false pretense of a licensing agreement despite having no intention to actually license the technology. Furthermore, Valencell accuses Apple of deciding it was more financially beneficial to risk infringing on Valencell's patents than to license them.Apple did not have an intention of licensing Valencell's PerformTek Technology. Instead, Apple's interaction with Valencell was fueled by a business decision that the benefits of infringing upon Valencell's patented technology outweigh the risk of being caught and ultimately forced to pay damages. This practice is consistent with the

Judge Dismisses Android-Switching iMessage Lawsuit Against Apple

U.S. District Judge Lucy H. Koh has dismissed [PDF] a lawsuit against Apple over a long-standing issue that prevented some former iPhone owners who switched to Android smartphones from receiving text messages from other iOS users, as reported by Business Insider. Koh originally ruled against granting the lawsuit class-action status, because it was not clear enough that all Android smartphone switchers were actually affected by the issue, but a trio of plaintiffs Adam Backhaut, Bouakhay Joy Backhaut and Kenneth Morris persisted with their case.The three alleged that they switched from iPhones to Android phones in 2012. After that, texts sent to them from other iPhone users were not delivered. They were probably stuck in Apple's iMessage system, which was notoriously unreliable at delivering texts to Android phones until late 2014, when Apple introduced a fix for the bug. That constitutes a violation of the Federal Wire Tap Act, the three claim. Apple denied the allegations.Apple launched a web tool in November 2014 for users to deregister their phone number from iMessage in the event they switched to a non-Apple device, and Koh ruled that Apple would face a federal lawsuit over the issue just two days later. As of Koh's ruling on Tuesday, however, all lawsuits against Apple related to the matter have come to a close with no punitive damages against the

Authors Believe Apple's Entry Into E-Book Market Wasn't Anti-Competitive

A coalition of authors and well-known booksellers have come forth to back Apple in a petition to overturn a recent ruling that stated the company was liable in conspiring to fix the prices of electronic books when its iBooks store launched on the iPad in 2010 (via Cult of Mac). Together, the Authors Guild, Authors United, the American Booksellers Association, and Barnes & Noble have filed a 37-page amicus brief that states Apple was in fact enhancing competition and benefiting its customers. “We are pleased to lend our support in this matter, critical to anyone interested in a competitive and diverse literary marketplace,” said Mary Rasenberger, executive director of the Authors Guild, in a statement. “We fundamentally question the wisdom of the Second Circuit’s use of antitrust law to punish a business arrangement that demonstrably increased competition in the e-book marketplace.” The brief falls in line with Apple's petition of the Supreme Court to review the case this past October, after first being found guilty of conspiring to artificially inflate the prices of e-books back in 2013, when the case started. The amicus brief filed by the authors and booksellers backs up Apple's attempts at overturning the ruling, stating that a positive outcome for the case is "critical to maintaining a healthy marketplace for the ideas and First Amendment-protected expression that authors and bookstores facilitate." The groups even mention Amazon as more of a "disruptive" force in the e-books market, with a "loss leader" strategy that led to domination over the digital

Lawsuit by Apple Retail Employees Over Off-the-Clock Bag Searches Dismissed

U.S. District Judge William Alsup today dismissed a lawsuit against Apple that had been brought by several retail employees over Apple's policy of conducting required security searches of personal bags without compensation after workers had clocked out for meal breaks or at the end of their shifts, reports Bloomberg. The class action lawsuit covered thousands of employees at Apple's California retail stores. (Photo via Reuters/Hannibal Hanschke) The ruling by a San Francisco federal judge Saturday releases the company from having to compensate as many [as] 12,400 former and current employees from 52 stores throughout the state a few dollars a day for time spent over a six-year period having their bags and Apple devices searched at meal breaks and after their shifts. A law professor who reviewed filings in the case estimated Apple could have been be on the hook for as much as $60 million, plus penalties.In his ruling, Alsup noted that employees could have avoided the searches, as some employees did, by not bringing personal bags to work. The lawsuit had been restricted to California as the U.S. Supreme Court had previously ruled workers are not entitled to compensation for time spent in post-shift bag searches under federal law. An attorney for the plaintiffs in the case reports they are weighing their potential next steps, which could include an appeal of Alsup's

Apple Asks U.S. Supreme Court to Overturn Guilty Verdict in E-Books Antitrust Case

Apple is asking the United States Supreme Court to overturn the 2013 U.S. Appellate Court ruling that found the company guilty of conspiring with publishers to inflate the prices of e-books, reports Reuters. Apple's petition comes following the loss of a June appeal where the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld the guilty verdict and maintained Apple violated antitrust laws and colluded with five publishers - HarperCollins, Simon and Schuster, Hachette Book Group, Macmillan, and Penguin - to fix e-book prices and unreasonably restrain trade.Apple in its petition said the June decision by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York contradicted Supreme Court precedent and would "chill innovation and risktaking." "The Second Circuit's decision will harm competition and the national economy," Apple wrote.Should the U.S. Supreme Court uphold the lower court's verdict, Apple will be forced to pay $450 million as part of a settlement with class action lawyers and state district attorneys, with $400 million of that amount earmarked for consumers. Apple reached the settlement in June of 2014 to avoid a lengthy damages trial, but the payout hinged on the outcome of the company's appeal. Though Apple was found guilty, the company has maintained its innocence throughout the dispute. In its appeal, Apple said its efforts "kick-started competition" to deliver "higher output, lower price levels, and accelerated

Apple Loses A7/A8 Patent Lawsuit, Could Owe University of Wisconsin Up to $862 Million

Last year, the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (WARF), which protects the University of Wisconsin's intellectual rights and patents, sued Apple for infringing on one of its processor patents. According to the lawsuit, Apple used the University's technology in its A7, A8, and A8X processors included in the 2013 and 2014 iPhone and iPad lineup. A Wisconsin jury today found Apple guilty of infringing on the patent owned by WARF, reports Reuters, and as a result, the Cupertino-based company could be forced to pay up to $862 million in damages. The jury also ruled that the patent was valid, negating Apple's argument that it was invalid and no infringement had taken place.Cupertino, California-based Apple denied any infringement and argued the patent is invalid, according to court papers. Apple previously tried to convince the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to review the patent's validity, but in April the agency rejected the bid. According to a recent ruling by U.S. District Judge William Conley, who is presiding over the case, Apple could be liable for up to $862.4 million in damages.Granted in 1998, the patent in question covers a method for improving processor efficiency and is titled "Table based data speculation circuit for parallel processing computer." It lists several current and former University of Wisconsin researchers as inventors. Now that the jury has decided Apple used the university's technology in its processors, the trial will move on to decide the damages owed. Following that, there will be a third trial phase to determine whether Apple

Apple May Lose Monitor in E-Book Price Fixing Lawsuit

The U.S. Justice Department yesterday recommended that the court-appointed monitor placed on Apple during the price-fixing e-book case that began two years ago does not need to be extended (via Bloomberg). The Justice Department said that it's largely satisfied with Apple's response of reforms and compliance with the antitrust laws, even though it believes the Cupertino-based company had internal fights with the monitor assigned to them -- Michael Bromwich -- to ensure the sale of e-books went as the court appointed. The government on Monday recommended that the monitoring not be extended. In a letter to the Manhattan federal judge who found in 2013 that Apple illegally conspired with publishers to set e-book prices, the U.S. said Apple has “now implemented meaningful antitrust policies, procedures, and training programs that were obviously lacking at the time Apple participated in and facilitated the horizontal price-fixing conspiracy found by this court.” Apple admitted that the interactions between the company and its monitor were "rocky at times," but disagreed with the Justice Department's claim of being uncooperative. Apple ultimately feels committed to seeing the case through to the end, stating in a joint letter to U.S. District Judge Denise Cote that “Over the past two years, Apple has developed and implemented a comprehensive, engaging, and effective antitrust compliance program.” Apple in May lost its legal challenge to the appointment of monitor Michael Bromwich, a former Justice Department inspector general. The relationship between Apple and Bromwich was

Lawsuit Against Apple Over Android-Switching iMessage Issue Fails to Gain Class-Action Status

Apple yesterday won a significant ruling against a group lawsuit filed by a former iPhone user who sued the Cupertino company after claiming that switching from an iPhone to an Android smartphone interfered with her receipt of text messages (via Bloomberg). The plaintiff, Adrienne Moore, noted in her complaint originally filed in May 2014 that an inability to unlink her phone number from iMessage prevented her from receiving text messages sent by iPhone users to her Samsung Galaxy S5 running Android. The lawsuit claimed users switching away from the iPhone to other devices were "penalized and unable to obtain the full benefits of their wireless-service contracts" due to the issue, with Moore and her lawyers alleging Apple failed to successfully elaborate on the "interference" that switching platforms would cause. The lawsuit sought group status for the claim, which would automatically include all affected users and potentially result in a significant settlement or court judgment, but U.S. District Judge Lucy H. Koh yesterday ruled the suit can't continue as a group lawsuit because it wasn't clear enough that all included members were actually affected by the occurrence described by Moore. Koh decided there was no direct "contractual breach or interference" relating to a problem within the iMessage system itself, thereby giving Apple a victory on the case.Even if Moore is correct in arguing iMessage has “systematic flaws that could result in the disruption of text messaging services, that determination does not assist the court in determining whether iMessage

Judge Drops Apple's $533M Fine in iTunes-Related Lawsuit, Sets New Damages Trial

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas on Tuesday voided $532.9 million in damages awarded to patent licensing firm Smartflash LLC in February in an iTunes-related patent lawsuit, per Reuters. The report claims federal judge Rodney Gilstrap has set a new damages trial on September 14 after ruling that "his jury instructions might have 'skewed' jurors' understanding of the damages that Apple should pay." Apple was initially ordered to pay $532.9 million in damages to Smartflash LLC after a federal jury in the Tyler, Texas courtroom found certain iTunes apps to be infringing upon the company's patents related to digital rights management, data storage and managing access through payment systems. Apple countered that Smartflash LLC was exploiting the patent system to collect royalties.“Smartflash makes no products, has no employees, creates no jobs, has no U.S. presence, and is exploiting our patent system to seek royalties for technology Apple invented,” said Kristin Huguet, an Apple spokeswoman. “We refused to pay off this company for the ideas our employees spent years innovating and unfortunately we have been left with no choice but to take this fight up through the court system.”Smartflash LLC was originally seeking $852 million in damages, and claimed it was entitled to a percentage of sales of Apple products used to access iTunes, such as iPhones, iPads and Macs. Apple argued that $4.5 million was fair at most, claiming it does not infringe upon any of Smartflash LLC's inventions and that its patents are invalid. Apple likely still faces

Apple Loses Appeal in E-Books Price Fixing Lawsuit, Ordered to Pay $450 Million Fine

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit today upheld a 2013 decision that found Apple guilty of conspiring with publishers to raise the prices of e-books, reports The Wall Street Journal. Apple is now expected to pay a $450 million fine originally set in July 2014 to settle the case, with a majority of that settlement earmarked for consumers as part of a class action lawsuit. Apple filed the appeal in the antitrust case in December 2014, and the outcome was originally expected to favor the iPhone maker, although federal judge Debra Ann Livingston ultimately determined that the company colluded with publishers to fix the prices of e-books. The decision was finalized by a 2-1 ruling in the Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan on Tuesday."We conclude that the district court correctly decided that Apple orchestrated a conspiracy among the publishers to raise e-book prices,” wrote Second Circuit Judge Debra Ann Livingston. The conspiracy “unreasonably restrained trade” in violation of the Sherman Act, the federal antitrust law, the judge wrote.The Wall Street Journal has shared the full-length court document for the

Apple and A123 Systems Nearing Settlement in Battery Engineer Poaching Lawsuit

Apple and A123 Systems are close to reaching a settlement in an ongoing battery engineer poaching lawsuit between the two companies, according to The Boston Globe. A123 Systems, an advanced battery manufacturer, originally filed suit against Apple in February for poaching key battery engineering employees to join its own automative team, including former chief technology officer Mujeeb Ijaz."On Tuesday, a federal judge granted A123 more time to finalize the settlement with Apple," reports The Boston Globe. "In a court filing, the two sides reported that they 'have reached an agreement, signed a term sheet, and are in the process of drafting a final settlement agreement.'"Apple's much-rumored automotive team reportedly consists of hundreds of employees, including several former Tesla, Ford and GM employees and other talent from smaller firms such as A123 Systems, MIT Motorsports, Ogin, Autoliv, Concept Systems and General Dynamics. The team is believed to be working on an auto-related project, possibly involving an electric and potentially autonomous vehicle.

Ericsson Extends Patent Lawsuit Against Apple to Europe

Ericsson has filed lawsuits against Apple in Germany, United Kingdom and the Netherlands after failing to reach a global licensing agreement with the company over both standard-essential and non-standardized patents. Ericsson claims that Apple continues to sell the iPhone, iPad and other products that infringe upon its patented technologies, some related to 2G and 4G LTE standards, even though its licensing agreement expired in January. Ericsson has been attempting to license its standard-essential patents with Apple on terms that are fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND), but the two companies have failed to reach an agreement following over two years of negotiations. Unable to resolve the situation outside of the courtroom, Ericsson has since filed patent lawsuits against the iPhone maker in the United States, and now Europe, for mediation by the courts."Apple continues to profit from Ericsson's technology without having a valid license in place," said Kasim Alfalahi, Chief Intellectual Property Officer at Ericsson. "Our technology is used in many features and functionality of today's communication devices. We are confident the courts in Germany, the UK and the Netherlands will be able to help us resolve this matter in a fair manner."Ericsson, the world's largest provider of mobile network equipment, originally filed two complaints with the U.S. International Trade Commission and seven complaints with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas against Apple earlier this year. In late March, the ITC agreed to investigate the patent