A German non-practicing entity named IPCom filed a lawsuit last month against Apple accusing Apple of infringing upon its patent involving the emergency-dialing feature on mobile devices and demanded $2.2 billion in monetary compensation. However, after undergoing two panels of judges in the Mannheim Regional Court, the case has been dismissed with a total of three rulings announcing that Apple did not infringe a certain IPCom patent family by implementing the 3G/UMTS standard. A related lawsuit filed by IPCom against HTC concerning the same patent was also dismissed by court. It is believed that IPCom will most likely appeal, but Apple and HTC have no intention to settle and will continue to challenge the validity of related patents.
I am personally relieved to learn of the outcome of this trial, for patent-licensing firms like IPCom are infamous for being active in litigating against tech companies on deceitful and invalid grounds. The court's rejection of IPCom's claim this time around can hopefully set the precedent for future rulings on lawsuits involving bad faith assertions of patent infringements from non-practicing entities.
Furthermore, major tech firms such as Apple, Samsung and Google have also filed another petition to the EU asking to limit the power of European patent holding companies like IPCom in future infringement cases. Coupled with the effort made by the Senate of Kentucky in combating patent trolls (discussed in previous post), there has been considerable progress being made in reforming the patent system. As a strong supporter of patent reform, I look forward to seeing more comprehensive changes to be made and how the patent industry will react and adjust in response.
Source: http://www.fosspatents.com/2014/02/ipcoms-22-billion-lawsuit-against-apple.html
It is going to be interesting to see the patent reform play out. IPCom, as you identified, is a European Patent Troll. I do think it is important that companies with the tendency to file claims on little to no grounds should be put in a more rigorous process in order to not waste court time. Thanks for the post!
ReplyDeleteDefinately +1 for Apple. I also did a blogpost on this, and it was clear that IPCom was suing a lot of companies on the list, including HTC. What can we do about patent trolls to minimize this? Only way I can see is to win, and have them pay for litigation fees.
ReplyDeleteI'm curious to know how IPCom reached the $2.2 billion figure, especially for a relatively obscure and (hopefully) rarely used feature like the emergency call button. It seems like an awful lot. I would think that the infringement on the design patent (like the curved edges) would be worth around that value, not the emergency call feature.
ReplyDeleteHi Jega, that is an interesting point you brought up that I never thought about! I am curious as well about how patent trolls come up with the amount to demand from tech companies. I am assuming it has to do with the number of products developed and sold from infringing upon the patent. And considering the market share of Apple, this number shouldn't be that big of a surprise. But I will definitely look more into that!
DeleteTo say the least,there is a wide array of contenders in the Smartphone Patent War, whether its in the United States and Europe. There needs to be regulation put in place and I think this case is an example of the courts trying to do so.
ReplyDeleteI definitely am relieved that the company and not the patent troll won this case. It is important to not encourage the NPE to continue to pursue patent lawsuits that provide strain on the company.
ReplyDeleteHowever, it is important to note that the court decision was made in Europe and not the US. While I understand that the US system is improving, I feel that the mindset provided in the judicial members in Europe may have helped the company.
Also, the judge contested the phrasing of one claim in this patent case. There is a difference between bit and information. The lesson here is that the claim needs to be identical or nearly the same in order to pursue the claim. In here, the two terms are too vague to provide a clear and obvious comparison to the jury.
Hi Norman, good point in brought up with regards to the decision being made in Europe. I did not take that into consideration when evaluating the case, but now that you've mentioned it, I think as far as patent reform goes, US can definitely look up to the European courts as a resource to learn from!
DeleteI actually wrote about the same blog post a couple weeks ago. And my reaction was the same as you. I was relieved to see that a patent troll lost a battle against one of the giants. And as I am reading in the comments it is good to know that our peers share the same opinion.
ReplyDeleteBut I also want to address a point made by Norman. I never thought about that. I didn't know that European courts had some sort of impartiality in regards to these companies. But the European courts can definitely serve as a model to their US counterparts.
Hi Jane,
ReplyDeleteSimilar to Osama and Dong, I also wrote on IPCom's lawsuit against Apple last week. I thought it was interesting that Florian Mueller, Foss Patents' writer, highlighted Apple’s historic success against patent trolls in Germany due to its repeated use of successful law firm Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer. Mueller also highlighted IPCom’s ongoing issues regarding its patent portfolio, in that many large manufacturers are working to invalidate various patents.