Text Size

Yet another iPhone patent lawsuit

updated 06:50 pm EST, Wed January 23, 2008

iPhone patent lawsuit

Apple has been slapped with yet another patent infringement lawsuit regarding the iPhone. This time the plaintiff is Minerva m owner by assignment of United States Patent No. 7,321,783 (the "783 Patent") entitled "Mobile Entertainment and Communication Device," which was issued on January 22, 2008. In other words, as soon as the patent was issued, the suit was filed. The suit alleges that defendants Apple and component supplier AtlanticRT have been and now are directly infringing, and indirectly infringing by making, using, offering to sell, or selling the iPhone which is covered by one or more claims

The patent describes a "mobile entertainment and communication device in a palm-held size housing (that) has a cellular or satellite telephone capable of wireless communication with the Internet and one or more replaceable memory card sockets for receiving a blank memory card for recording data directly rom the Internet and, in particular, musical performances that then can be selectively reproduced by the device for the enjoyment of the user, including both audio and visual recordings and reproductions.

The device also includes a camera and microphone for recording images and sound within the range of the device that can be wireless transmitted, either selectively or automatically to a remote telephone. Further, the device includes sensors for sensing unusual conditions that may also be transmitted to a remote telephone, together with the location of the device as determined by a GPS section of the device."

Minerva's suit alleges that Apple’s infringement has been willful since at least November 20, 2007. The company claims that after receiving notice of the '363 Application, Apple waited until approximately one week before the patent was to issue before sending prior art (the 'Apple Prior Art') that Apple contended rendered the claims of the ‘363 Application invalid.

Minerva says that the Patent Office determined that the claims of the ‘363 Application were patentable over the Apple Prior Art (and all of the other prior art that had been submitted), determining for a second time that the claims of the ‘363 Application were valid and patentable over the prior art, and again issued a notice of allowance.

Minerva seeks a permanent injunction enjoining Defendants Apple, Inc. and AtlanticRT Inc. to pay Minerva its damages, costs, expenses, and prejudgment and post-judgment interest and cease infringement immediately.

Apple has filed for a number of iPhone-related patents, including one for the multitouch keyboard, two for design and trademark, movable interfaces and more. The company has also faced a series of non-patent related iPhone suits, including one that claims the company deliberately misled consumers as to the practical costs of the iPhone.





 
Previous Comments

Good grief...

01/23, 07:37pm reply

I can't even think of anything else to say...

mgpalma

Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Sep 2000

0

Prior art

01/23, 08:06pm reply

This is definitely covered by prior art and not just by Apple. I have a 4 year old Nokia cell phone that would most likely be infringing this 783 patent too.

t6hawk

Dedicated MacNNer

Joined: Jan 2001

0

Useless patent

01/23, 09:06pm reply

If you're just going to patent some random ideas just for the sake of suing someone over an alleged infringement, that's f*cking lame! This is all about some loser nobody company who can't make money on their own.

howiethemacguy

Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Sep 2007

0

Floppy?

01/23, 09:37pm reply

My god! Is item 200 a 5 1/4 floppy? I agree with howiethemacguy, get a grip.

danofresh

Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jan 2008

0

fishing

01/23, 09:45pm reply

Most likely fishing for a settlement. Patents don't guarantee anything - they're just another exhibit in court. This company (or more likely their lawyers) hope there's a dollar threshold beneath which Apple will settle for pragmatic reasons. We'll see.

eddd

Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Dec 2001

0

I dunno...

01/23, 11:57pm reply

That Figure 3 above, that sure looks like an iPhone to me!!

That's it, I'm selling my Apple stock... no wait, wrong time...

Loren

Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Mar 2001

0

Re: prior art

01/24, 07:44am reply

You can't base prior art on when a patent was issued, but when it was filed (and maybe even before then, if you have proof of development and data sharing).

testudo

Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Aug 2001

0

BTW

01/24, 07:45am reply

Should we just acronymize these things to be just YAPL?

testudo

Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Aug 2001

0

Working product?

01/24, 10:25am reply

Why isn't a working product required to get a patent? I mean, seriously. Everyone thought those things should be put together in a single device for a long time. Apple did it (sans the removable memory card) and has a product to show. Companies that have patents and no products should have no patents.

bjojade

Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jun 2007

0

Agree with Bjojade

01/24, 10:56am reply

It seems anyone can get a patent just by putting in prior information and sending it to the patent office. Get approved and start pending lawsuits all over the place. Never even intending to build a real product ever. Get rich on settlements and patent lawsuits and then retire. The Patent claims need to be changed! I agree with Bjojade that proof of the patenters product or products should be applied before a claim is approved. No product, no patent. It should be those that produce a real product first get the patent. And this patent seems to be so broad that all phone's are in violation not just the iPhone.

horvatic

Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Apr 2002

0

Popular News