Related Research Articles
Eolas is a United States technology firm formed as a spin-off from the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), in order to commercialize UCSF's patents for work done there by Eolas' co-founders. The company was founded in 1994 by Dr. Michael Doyle and three of his staff members from the UCSF Center for Knowledge Management. While the company has been labeled as a patent troll by accused infringers of those patents, this narrative has been characterized by recent commentators as political propaganda by big-tech, since Eolas was created at the request of UCSF, and was founded by the inventors on the university's patents.
Akamai Technologies, Inc. is a global content delivery network (CDN), cybersecurity, and cloud service company, providing web and Internet security services. Akamai's Intelligent Edge Platform is one of the world's largest distributed computing platforms. The company operates a network of servers around the world and rents out capacity on these servers to customers who want their websites to work faster by distributing content from locations near the user. When a user navigates to the URL of an Akamai customer, their browser is directed to one of Akamai's copies of the website.
David Hillel Gelernter is an American computer scientist, artist, and writer. He is currently a professor of computer science at Yale University. He is a former national fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and senior fellow in Jewish thought at the Shalem Center, and sat on the National Endowment for the Arts. He publishes widely; his work has appeared in The Wall Street Journal, New York Post, Los Angeles Times, The Weekly Standard, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, and elsewhere. His paintings have been exhibited in New Haven and Manhattan.
The multinational technology corporation Apple Inc. has been a participant in various legal proceedings and claims since it began operation and, like its competitors and peers, engages in litigation in its normal course of business for a variety of reasons. In particular, Apple is known for and promotes itself as actively and aggressively enforcing its intellectual property interests. From the 1980s to the present, Apple has been plaintiff or defendant in civil actions in the United States and other countries. Some of these actions have determined significant case law for the information technology industry and many have captured the attention of the public and media. Apple's litigation generally involves intellectual property disputes, but the company has also been a party in lawsuits that include antitrust claims, consumer actions, commercial unfair trade practice suits, defamation claims, and corporate espionage, among other matters.
Uniloc Corporation is a patent assertion entity founded in Australia in 1992 that develops "try and buy" software distributed via magazines and preinstalled on new computers.
Cover Flow is an animated, three-dimensional graphical user interface element that was integrated within the Macintosh Finder and other Apple Inc. products for visually flipping through snapshots of documents, website bookmarks, album artwork, or photographs.
Limelight Networks is an American company that provides a content delivery network (CDN) service, used for delivery of digital media content and software. As of February 2020, the company's network has more than 130 points-of-presence and delivers with 70+ Terabits per second of egress capacity across the globe.
Alcatel-Lucent v. Microsoft Corp., also known as Lucent Technologies Inc. v. Gateway Inc., was a long-running patent infringement case between Alcatel-Lucent and Microsoft litigated in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California and appealed multiple times to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Alcatel-Lucent was awarded $1.53 billion in a final verdict in August 2007 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California in San Diego. The damages award was reversed on appeal in September 2009, and the case was returned for a separate trial on the amount of damages.
James Rodney Gilstrap is the Chief United States District Judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. He is notable for presiding over more than one quarter of all patent infringement cases filed in the nation and is often referred to by various sources as the country's single "busiest patent judge."
Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP is a premier litigation boutique located in San Francisco, California, founded in 1978. Keker, Van Nest & Peters has tried and litigated complex, high-stakes civil and criminal cases throughout the nation. The firm's areas of practice include intellectual property, professional liability, class actions, wrongful termination defense, general contract and commercial litigation, antitrust, white collar crime, and appellate.
TiVo Inc. v. EchoStar Corp. is a case stretching from 2004 to 2011, which took place in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas and the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. TiVo Inc. sued EchoStar Corp. claiming patent infringement of a DVR technology. The issues addressed during litigation included patent infringement, wording of injunctions, infringing product redesign, contempt of court orders, and contempt sanctions. Ultimately, the court held that EchoStar Corp. had indeed infringed TiVo Inc's patent and was in contempt of court for noncompliance of an injunction. The parties reached a settlement wherein EchoStar Corp. paid TiVo Inc. a licensing fee. Further, the court replaced the established contempt test with a single step test. The simplified test makes it more difficult for patent holders to prove contempt as a result of repeat infringement.
The smartphone wars or smartphone patents licensing and litigation refers to commercial struggles among smartphone manufacturers including Sony Mobile, Google, Apple Inc., Samsung, Microsoft, Nokia, Motorola, Huawei, LG Electronics, ZTE and HTC, by patent litigation and other means. The conflict is part of the wider "patent wars" between technology and software corporations. The patent wars occurred because a finished smartphone might involve hundreds of thousands of patents.
Motorola Mobility v. Apple Inc. was one of a series of lawsuits between technology companies Motorola Mobility and Apple Inc.. In the year before Apple and Samsung began suing each other on most continents, and while Apple and High Tech Computer Corp. (HTC) were already embroiled in a patent fight, Motorola Mobility and Apple started a period of intense patent litigation. The Motorola-Apple patent imbroglio commenced with claims and cross-claims between the companies for patent infringement, and encompassed multiple venues in multiple countries as each party sought friendly forums for litigating its respective claims; the fight also included administrative law rulings as well as United States International Trade Commission (ITC) and European Commission involvement. In April 2012, the controversy centered on whether a FRAND license to a components manufacturer carries over to an equipment manufacturer incorporating the component into equipment, an issue not addressed in the Supreme Court's default analysis using the exhaustion doctrine in Quanta v. LG Electronics. In June 2012, appellate judge Richard Posner dismissed the U.S. case with prejudice and the parties appealed the decision a month later.
Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronic Co., Ltd. was the first of a series of ongoing lawsuits between Apple Inc. and Samsung Electronics regarding the design of smartphones and tablet computers; between them, the companies made more than half of smartphones sold worldwide as of July 2012. In the spring of 2011, Apple began litigating against Samsung in patent infringement suits, while Apple and Motorola Mobility were already engaged in a patent war on several fronts. Apple's multinational litigation over technology patents became known as part of the mobile device "smartphone patent wars": extensive litigation in fierce competition in the global market for consumer mobile communications. By August 2011, Apple and Samsung were litigating 19 ongoing cases in nine countries; by October, the legal disputes expanded to ten countries. By July 2012, the two companies were still embroiled in more than 50 lawsuits around the globe, with billions of dollars in damages claimed between them. While Apple won a ruling in its favor in the U.S., Samsung won rulings in South Korea, Japan, and the UK. On June 4, 2013, Samsung won a limited ban from the U.S. International Trade Commission on sales of certain Apple products after the commission found Apple had violated a Samsung patent, but this was vetoed by U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman.
Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc. is an ongoing legal case within the United States related to the nature of computer code and copyright law. The dispute centers on the use of parts of the Java programming language's application programming interfaces (APIs), which are owned by Oracle, within early versions of the Android operating system by Google. Google has admitted to using the APIs, and has since transitioned Android to a copyright-unburdened engine, but argues their original use of the APIs was within fair use.
Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 632 F.3d 1292, was a patent lawsuit originally filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island.
Finjan, Inc. v. Secure Computing Corp., 626 F.3d 1197 (2010), was a patent infringement case by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit involving "proactive scanning" technology for computer security. The Federal Circuit made a mixed decision after hearing the appeals from both sides. In terms of infringement, the Federal Circuit affirmed Secure Computing's infringement on Finjan's system and storage medium patent claims but reversed the infringement on Finjan's method claim. In terms of damage award, the Federal Circuit not only affirmed the previous $9.18 million award by the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, but also remanded for the district court to assess the extra damages between the post-judgement and pre-injunction period.
VirnetX is a publicly traded Internet security software and technology company based in Zephyr Cove, Nevada. VirnetX has been described as being a patent troll, accused of marketing no actual products or services and instead earning its revenue through licensing patents and suing anyone that infringes them. The company has won intellectual property litigation against various technology companies.
Robert William Schroeder III is a United States District Judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.
Google has been involved in multiple lawsuits over issues such as privacy, advertising, intellectual property and various Google services such as Google Books and YouTube. The company's legal department expanded from one to nearly 100 lawyers in the first five years of business, and by 2014 had grown to around 400 lawyers. Google's Chief Legal Officer is Senior Vice President of Corporate Development David Drummond.
References
- ↑ "Mirror Worlds Technologies Links Scopeware With Lexmark's Multifunction Solutions to Solve Customer Information Management Challenges". Business Wire. July 3, 2001. Retrieved 8 October 2010.
- ↑ "Mirror Worlds Technologies, Inc. has decided to cease operations".
To our customers, partners and friends: Mirror Worlds Technologies, Inc. has decided to cease operations effective May 15, 2004. Our products, including Scopeware Vision and NewsWatcher, have been discontinued and are no longer available for download, purchase, or continuing support.
- ↑ "Mirror Worlds, LLC v. Apple, Inc". Justia.com. Retrieved 8 October 2010.
- ↑ of U.S. Patent Nos. US 6006227 and US 6638313 B1 ("Document Stream Operating System"), US 6725427 B2 ("Document Stream Operating System with Document Organizing and Display Facilities"), and US 6768999 B2 ("Enterprise, Stream-Based Information Management System") Patently Apple
- ↑ Keizer, Gregg (7 October 2010). "Apple wins reprieve from Mirror Worlds patent lawsuit". CIO. Retrieved 9 October 2010.
- ↑ Helft, Miguel; Schwartz, John (October 4, 1010). "Apple Challenges Big Award Over Patents". New York Times . Retrieved 2010-10-05.
Apple is challenging a jury verdict that could force it to pay as much as $625.5 million to a company founded by David Gelernter, a Yale computer science professor, for infringing three patents related to how files are displayed on the iPod, the iPhone and Macintosh computers.
- ↑ Decker and Satariano (October 4, 2010). "Apple Challenges $625.5 Million Mirror Worlds Verdict". Bloomberg. Retrieved 9 October 2010.
- ↑ East Texas judge tosses $625M patent verdict against Apple | Southeast Texas Record. Setexasrecord.com (2011-04-05). Retrieved on 2014-03-25.
- ↑ Decker, Susan. (2013-06-24) Apple Win in Mirror Worlds Case Left Intact by High Court. Bloomberg. Retrieved on 2014-03-25.