Apple Countersues Caltech and Settles With Dot 23 in Patent Lawsuits

[MacRumors]

Apple and Broadcom have jointly filed counterclaims against the California Institute of Technology in an ongoing Wi-Fi-related lawsuit, denying any alleged infringement of the technologies and urging the court to invalidate the asserted patents, according to court documents filed electronically this week.

Apple argued that Caltech did not file the lawsuit until May 26, 2016, more than six years after the publication of the 802.11n wireless standard, and thereby the time limit to collect damages has passed under U.S. law. It also argued that Caltech does not make, use, or sell any product that practices any claim of the asserted patents.

Caltech's patents, granted between 2006 and 2012, are highly technical and relate to IRA 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.

The asserted patents include U.S. Patent No. 7,116,710, U.S. Patent No. 7,421,032, U.S. Patent No. 7,916,781, and U.S. Patent No. 8,284,833.

In a May 2016 court filing with the U.S. District Court for Central California, Caltech accused Apple of selling various Mac, iPhone, iPad, and Apple Watch models, along with other Wi-Fi products, that incorporate those IRA/LDPC encoders and/or decoders and thereby infringe upon the four asserted patents in question.

Apple provided a series of other defenses, including Caltech's failure to disclose prior art, which is any information or evidence that might be relevant to a patent's claims of originality, with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. In this case, Apple said Repeat-Accumulate codes ("RA codes") were well known prior to IRA codes.

Apple and Broadcom, one of the company's main suppliers of Wi-Fi chips for select MacBook Air, MacBook Pro, iMac, iPhone, iPad, and Apple Watch models, have demanded a jury trial in the lawsuit. The case is officially titled "California Institute of Technology v. Broadcom Limited et al" on the docket.

Apple Settles With Dot 23 Technologies

Dot 23 Technologies, LLC has filed a motion to dismiss a patent lawsuit against Apple with the U.S. District Court for Eastern Texas. The two companies have agreed to settle out of court, but the specific terms of their agreement have not been publicized.

Dot 23, a Texas-based entity that generally fits the description of a "patent troll," filed suit against Apple in January, claiming that Siri on iPhone and iPad violated a trio of its patents related to voice dialing and recognition. The firm was seeking damages of an unspecified amount plus interest and fees in the case.

Article Link: Apple Countersues Caltech and Settles With Dot 23 in Patent Lawsuits

 

[countryside]

I have started to not even read these. So many patent trolls in this world.

 

[joueboy]

I understand some of the patent lawsuits has a legitimate claim or at least more convincing in certain situations. But what I don't understand is that when I buy components to assemble my product, I'm not supposed to be liable for anything. My payment for that component should have already covered any current or future claim toward such intellectual property. If I decided to put my own gps navigation in my car. Then I bought a monitor and gps chips and the software and the computer to power the device. I shouldn't be paying anymore if the manufacturer already paid to manufacture the components I needed. Just my 2 cents.

 

[oneMadRssn]

Can't wait to see the mental gymnastics people have to go through to paint one of the best and largest research universities in the world as a patent troll.
[doublepost=1470234872][/doublepost]

I understand some of the patent lawsuits has a legitimate claim or at least more convincing in certain situations. But what I don't understand is that when I buy components to assemble my product, I'm not supposed to be liable for anything. My payment for that component should have already covered any current or future claim toward such intellectual property. If I decided to put my own gps navigation in my car. Then I bought a monitor and gps chips and the software and the computer to power the device. I shouldn't be paying anymore if the manufacturer already paid to manufacture the components I needed. Just my 2 cents.

That is generally correct, unless the manufacturer you bought it from is infringing. Patent law says anyone that "makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells" a patented invention is liable. If the gps nav system you bought paid all the necessarily licensing fees, you cannot be liable. If they sold you an infringing nav system, you can be liable to the patent owner, and that manufacturer would then be liable to you.

 

[leroypants]

Those is just yet another case of Apple stealing someone else's innovation and refusing to pay.

 

[Porco]

I don't think they'd get away with called them "IRA codes" in the UK or Ireland. It'd be like the terrorist dog in Downton Abbey all over again.

 

[MikhailT]

Those is just yet another case of Apple stealing someone else's innovation and refusing to pay.

What did they steal exactly?

There's nothing in either cases to confirm anything. In the first case, Apple bought the components from Broadcom and put it in their devices. Apple does not produce its own Wi-Fi chips in any form. In this specific case, it would be Broadcom's stealing someone one else's innovation and shipping it to Apple. Unfortunately, in US, you can still be charged for infringing even if you had no awareness of the infringing parts in the components you buy. You won't be found "willingly infringing" but you will expect to pay some small fines.

As for the other case, a settlement doesn't mean anything in terms of someone's being guilty. In many cases, it may be cheaper to just settle a case even if you're not guilty and even if you think the patents are invalid. Courts are expensive, they often go into tens of millions of dollars if they drag on for too long. For patents that are not even worth it, it's better to settle and get a license that's a fraction of the lawsuit costs.

 

[Zirel]

There should be an Eastern District of Texas Rumors to track all of the BS that's going on there, not only for Apple...

 

[leroypants]

What did they steal exactly?

There's nothing in either cases to confirm anything. In the first case, Apple bought the components from Broadcom and put it in their devices. Apple does not produce its own Wi-Fi chips in any form. In this specific case, it would be Broadcom's stealing someone one else's innovation and shipping it to Apple. Unfortunately, in US, you can still be charged for infringing even if you had no awareness of the infringing parts in the components you buy. You won't be found "willingly infringing" but you will expect to pay some small fines.

As for the other case, a settlement doesn't mean anything in terms of someone's being guilty. In many cases, it may be cheaper to just settle a case even if you're not guilty and even if you think the patents are invalid. Courts are expensive, they often go into tens of millions of dollars if they drag on for too long. For patents that are not even worth it, it's better to settle and get a license that's a fraction of the lawsuit costs.

MUST...DEFEND...APPLE...

 

[macfacts]

I understand some of the patent lawsuits has a legitimate claim or at least more convincing in certain situations. But what I don't understand is .... I shouldn't be paying anymore if the manufacturer already paid to manufacture the components I needed. Just my 2 cents.

The lawsuit included Apple and their supplier, Broadcom.

If you buy stolen property, the police can take it away without paying you.

 

[Kabeyun]

And way to just copy & paste this thread from the reasoned & informed MacRumors patent debates of the past?

 

[Thunderhawks]

MUST...DEFEND...APPLE...

MUST ...NOT...UNDERSTAND what is going on.

 

[diegov12]

You do realize apple had nothing to do with that wifi tech, right? That technology is used by brodcom maker of wifi chips for the iphone and other devices, right?

Those is just yet another case of Apple stealing someone else's innovation and refusing to pay.

 

[Gasu E.]

The lawsuit included Apple and their supplier, Broadcom.

If you buy stolen property, the police can take it away without paying you.

Actually, by the same token, if you bought the end product ("iPhone") from Apple, then you stole the technology in turn, making you equally liable.

The only reason Caltech is not going after you is that you don't have Apple's deep pockets. But you are as guilty as Apple, just too insignificant to be worth anyone's bother.
[doublepost=1470249241][/doublepost]

MUST...DEFEND...APPLE...

Do you have one of those iPhones? Then you received stolen goods. You really should turn yourself in.

 

[techconc]

MUST...DEFEND...APPLE...

He asked a legitimate question... to which you don't have a legitimate reply. In reality, we don't have enough facts to determine who is or is not guilty. Yet, you seem hell bent on convicting Apple without knowing what you're talking about.

 

[Rocketman]

It is one thing to develop technology and patent it, and another for it to survive challenges to prior art and specific claims.

One thing that is rarely discussed is regulatory compliance and arbitrary changes by the government along the way. We saw one example of that today, but it is indicative it is pervasive along all agencies and industries.

White House link:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-pres...accelerate-safe-integration-unmanned-aircraft

August 02, 2016
FACT SHEET: New Commitments to Accelerate the Safe Integration of Unmanned Aircraft Systems


WASHINGTON, DC - Since President Obama took office in 2009, developments in aviation, sensing, and software technology have powered a revolution in unmanned flight. In the next decade, the burgeoning commercial drone industry is projected to generate more than $82 billion for the U.S. economy and, by 2025, could support as many as 100,000 new jobs.

Question: $82B and only 100,000 jobs? One wonders how many will be lost or not started ever . . . .

 

[Threbus]

Those is just yet another case of Apple stealing someone else's innovation and refusing to pay.

Or possibly a company buying patents and then deciding to sue although the original patent holder elected not to for whatever reason. As for Cal Tech, non-defense of patents will hurt them. You not only have to make a reasonable effort to defend your ownership, but also do so in a timely manner. If it's been over 6 years as Apple claims, I think Cal Tech will go down quickly.

 

[FactVsOpinion]

Those is just yet another case of Apple stealing someone else's innovation and refusing to pay.

Stealing? Really? As in theft? Even when such cases are ruled in favor of the patent holder, to call it stealing is often, if not usually, a mischaracterization.

When people think of the concept theft, it is unlikely that the infringement of a patent comes most readily mind, especially in cases of inadvertent patent infringement.

But I think you know this already...

 

[campyguy]

I don't get the "6-year" bit - the patent holder has up to 6 years beyond the expiration of the patent to litigate, and the patents are still active.

What I do see, from the perspective of Broadcom, et al, is an assertion of laches - so much time has passed it could be viewed that they've taken too long to bring action, unless there was some promise by Broadcom for compensation that never came to fruition. Or estoppel on the part of CalTech that changed directions with a new Dean or Board members who can only see $$$$.

I'm not going to buy any popcorn to munch over this bit...

 

[Threbus]

I don't get the "6-year" bit - the patent holder has up to 6 years beyond the expiration of the patent to litigate, and the patents are still active.

What I do see, from the perspective of Broadcom, et al, is an assertion of laches - so much time has passed it could be viewed that they've taken too long to bring action, unless there was some promise by Broadcom for compensation that never came to fruition. Or estoppel on the part of CalTech that changed directions with a new Dean or Board members who can only see $$$$.

I'm not going to buy any popcorn to munch over this bit...

The point is not the 6 years after expiration, it's that you have to "actively defend" the patent. Since the patents were from 2003-2006, and Broadcom and Apple have been using the technology for at least 10 years, CalTech should have filed their action within the first year or two, not after 10.

 

[campyguy]

The point is not the 6 years after expiration, it's that you have to "actively defend" the patent. Since the patents were from 2003-2006, and Broadcom and Apple have been using the technology for at least 10 years, CalTech should have filed their action within the first year or two, not after 10.

No offense, that is exactly the point I was making in citing laches...