Apple Sued Over iPhones Making Calls and Sending Email

Apple AND Samsung sued by patent troll for selling phones that make phone calls and send and receive email! Claim that both Apple and Samsung are infringing patents the troll purchased. Files suit in the Rocket Docket in East Texas. — PING!

Pinging dayglored, Shadow Ace, and ThunderSleeps for their ping lists because of a stupid Patent Troll.

Apple and Samsung sued by Patent Troll
selling phones that make phone calls!
Ping!

The latest Apple/Mac/iOS Pings can be found by searching Keyword "ApplePingList" on FreeRepublic's Search.

If you want on or off the Mac Ping List, Freepmail me

Apple usually wins these. Beat his trolling butt

A Texas patent troll under the name Corydoras Technologies LLC that first sued Samsung in March is now suing Apple with a series of patents that they acquired from Japan which they claim are "presumed valid." The company claims that 20 specific models of Apple's iPhones and iPads infringe on various claims of their patents in respect to cameras, call blocking, FaceTime calling and more.

More specifically, the official complaint filed by Corydoras Technologies covers six patents by the same title "Communication Device. The patents involved include 7,778,664, 7,945,236, 7,945,287, 7,996,037, 8,024,009 and 8,731,540. The products listed in the lawsuit include the following: the iPhone 4, 4S, 5, 5S, 5C, 6, 6 Plus, 6S, 6S Plus and SE (collectively "Accused iPhones"), and the iPad 2, iPad 3rd generation, iPad 4th generation, iPad Pro, iPad Air, iPad Air 2, iPad mini, iPad mini 2, iPad mini 3, and iPad mini 4 (collectively "Accused iPads").

The Corydoras Technologies lawsuit file with the court states in-part that "Apple's Accused iPhones and Accused iPads are capable of voice communication. For example, the Accused iPhones are made and sold with the capability to be used in telephone calls and FaceTime Audio calls. By way of further example, the Accused iPads are made and sold with the capability to be used in FaceTime Audio calls.

Apple's Accused iPhones and Accused iPads include a camera on the same side as the display. Apple refers to this camera as the "Front camera" on the iPhone 4 and 4S, and as the "FaceTime camera" for the remaining models of Apple's Accused iPhones and Accused iPads. When this camera is in use, Apple's Accused iPhones and Accused iPads are capable of displaying a mirror image of the object, such as a person, that is in the view of this camera. More at Source: "Apple Hit With Six Count Lawsuit Over iPad and iPhone Functions"—Patently Apple

Abstracts of each patent in suit:

Patent # 7,778,664:(filed: October 20, 2006, granted: August 17, 2010) Communications Device: A communication device, such as a mobile phone, which implements a voice communication mode, a digital mirror mode, a video phone mode, and a call blocking mode.
Patent # 7,945,236:(filed: April 10, 2010, granted: May 17, 2011) Communications Device: A communication device, such as a mobile phone, which implements a voice communication mode, a digital mirror mode, and a GPS mode, wherein the image retrieved from the camera is displayed in an inverted manner when the digital mirror mode is implemented, and the current geographic location of the communication device is indicated on the display when the GPS mode is implemented.
Patent # 7,945,287:(filed: May 16, 2011, granted: May 17, 2011) Communications Device: A communication device, such as a mobile phone, which implements a voice communication mode, a digital mirror mode, and a sound caller ID mode, wherein the image retrieved from the camera is displayed in an inverted manner when the digital mirror mode is implemented, and upon receiving a phone call, a specific sound corresponding to the caller of the phone call is output from the communication device when the sound caller ID mode is implemented.
Patent # 7,996,037:(filed: April 10, 2010, granted: August 9, 2011) Communications Device: A communication device, such as a mobile phone, which implements a voice communication mode, a digital mirror mode, and a voice dialing mode, wherein the image retrieved from the camera is displayed in an inverted manner when the digital mirror mode is implemented, and a dialing process is performed by utilizing an audio data retrieved via the microphone when the voice dialing mode is implemented.
Patent # 8,024,009: (filed: April 10, 2010, granted: September 20, 2011) Communications Device: A communication device, such as a mobile phone, which implements a voice communication mode, a digital mirror mode, and an answer rejecting mode, wherein the image retrieved from the camera is displayed in an inverted manner when the digital mirror mode is implemented, and answering to a phone call addressed to the communication device is rejected when the answer rejecting mode is implemented.
Patent # 8,731,540:(filed: September 16, 2011, granted: May 20, 2014) Communications Device: The communication device comprising a multiple function implementer, wherein the multiple function implementer implements a voice communication function, a digital mirror function, a non-digital mirror function, and an email function.

Every one of these "inventions" is based on an "original" application from October 2002, which is apparently based on Apple's own iChat application which was released in OS X.2 in August 2002 which had all of the supposedly unique features described, was available on a portable communications device, the Apple MacBook, except being available on a telephone like device, which makes this all prior art and an obvious development of the technology.

Note that these are all "idea" patents and do not spell out how these ideas are to be accomplished or implemented in technology. They are also all "inventions" of one person who NEVER, EVER implemented or licensed them, because he did not have a viable technology to sell, just an obvious, already implemented in other form idea that others were already using such as AOL Instant Messenger (AIM) which was first released May 1997 and used for video messaging, Skype (August 2003), and other competing video chat services which fell by the wayside. Apple iChat's patents cited AOL Instant Messenger as prior art. iChat could be used via WIFI from computer to computer as a telephonic video device prior to the patent application these inventions. . . and the iSight camera could be used as a reversing mirror. All prior art and obvious as all get out to anyone versed in the technology.

It is interesting to note that the Troll is including the iPhone 4 in it's list of infringing devices.

The earliest granted patent date in their list was August 17, 2010. The iPhone 4 was revealed to the world on June 7, 2010 and started selling on June 24, 2010, two months before the earliest patent it supposedly infringes was granted.

The writer of this article is not quite up-to-date on his facts. For example, he states:

"That said, it hasn’t always worked out in the company’s favor. Last year, for instance, Apple went to court in what was called the “plaintiff friendly” U.S. District Court in Texas, only to lose the case. That one was brought against Apple by Smartflash LLC for the company allegedly violating three patents related to copy protection. Apple was ordered to pay $533 million."

The author of the article hasn't been paying attention to the latest news. The base patent in that suit was declared invalid by a Federal Appellate Court in March. That basically eviscerates the $533 million judgement. The three judge panel declared the patent—using the internet to buy things with a computer or mobile device and pay for it with a secure credit card—an un-patentable "abstract idea."

Apple (AAPL) Receives Favorable Decision in Smartflash Patent Case
March 30, 2016 12:39 PM EDT
Apple (NASDAQ: AAPL) has won a verdict in a dispute over Smartflash patents.
Bloomberg said the US Patent and Trademark Office invalidated one of the claims in a $533 million suit.
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board said that the patent isn't eligible for patent protection because it seeks to cover (an) “abstract idea."
The patent challenge was originally filed by Samsung.

That was the lynchpin claim at the heart of the infringement suit. Without it, the rest of the claims all fall. Now, if only someone had challenged Amazon on the same thing for their "pen-click" purchase business plan idea patent for which they get royalties from anyone who uses a one-click buying system.

This also shoots down SmartFlash's immediate second suit against Apple on devices they had not included in their first suit.

Apple should thank Samsung for not having to continue with their own appeal on the same argument. Samsung winning their Appeal case has saved Apple the legal costs as well as the $533 million!

Congress needs to pass laws making patent trolls pay legal fees if they lose and triple damages if it is a pattern of practice with no underlying business case, e.g.actually manufacturing products.

Patent trolls come in all shapes and sizes, from this particular company to Apple to IBM to Google. It all stems from the same basic flaw that has plagued development in the past 30 years - the US patent system, and most specifically process patents.

The US patent office, in defiance to just about any child who grew up in the past 200 years, issued a process patent to a claimant for swinging on a swing sideways. http://www.google.com/patents/US6368227 — this patent was applied for in 2000, and awarded in 2002.

Now thankfully they’ve not filed infringement suits against those who permit blatant theft of their intellectual property (IE most school and park playgrounds.) Steven Olsen filed for this patent to demonstrate how broken our patent system is; he obviously did not invent it, was not the first to swing sideways on a swing.

Thousands of patents are awarded under the process system that utilize just the same common concepts, and they are unfortunately awarded. And as most companies would rather not spend half a billion dollars in legal fees defending these lawsuits, the trolls get fed, big and small.

I’d feel for Samsung and Apple over this issue, but they’ve benefitted from the same creature that they’re being sued by.

And to be honest, at this point, I’m not sure which would be best to fix first - the courts by requiring permission from Congress for any federal court to award a judgment of more than $25,000 (one possible solution), or the wholesale slaughter of inventions covered by the patent office.

Both are utterly out of control. Both need to desperately be reigned in, and I honestly think that the first and foremost to control is the courts; if the trolls (or anyone else for that matter) couldn’t go seize massive assets through the federal court system, there’d be little reason for troll companies to exist in the first place.

Besides, these troll companies are going to sue the feds for billions if they gut their troll portfolios, so I guess it would be best to start with the courts.

I'm hit by trolls all the time, I sell music CDs. The claims are I'm ‘infringing on their intellectual property’ by selling used CDs. Not one disc was purchased new by me, I'm likely the 3rd if not the 5th person to own these items.

Garth Brooks was an infamous troll for dropping infringement claims on just about anyone who sold his CDs who didn't purchase them from an authorized distributor.

Being such a small fish, however, I've never been targeted by much of a team of lawyers. I've had some slight brushes, especially when a particularly interesting disc comes across my desk. But for me to collect, as just an example, against one of these firms, I would likely have to borrow enough money to live on comfortably for the rest of my life to pay the lawyers, and live in limbo through the court case and appeals likely for close to 10 years.

Courts are not oriented towards finding truth; in my own situation, I've been lucky in that each judge has accepted a dismissal request based upon a 9th circuit ruling on the first sale doctrine. Under a ‘loser pays’ type system, I'm sure I'd never get another dismissal again; after all, I would cost that company money with that dismissal, and it would be hardly fair to take money without having a case heard...

If courts were limited to a small token amount that could be awarded directly, with anything above that amount requiring a rubber stamp approval from Congress, that in itself would wipe out most if not all the patent trolls (both large companies and small...)

A year and four months after being stupidly granted in April 2002, the alternate direction swing patent underwent reexamination and all 4 patent claims were found to be invalid and cancelled in July of 2003. I hope they fired the original examiner who granted this idiotic patent for incompetence!

Abstracts of each patent in suit:

Don't confuse the abstract with the actual patent claim(s) the suit is based on. The latter are not 'quite that simple'.

I didn’t suggest loser pays. I suggested patent troll losers should pay.