After Winning $11 Million From Samsung, Rembrandt Sues Apple Over Same Bluetooth-Related Patents

[MacRumors]

Pennsylvania-based entity Rembrandt Wireless Technologies has filed a lawsuit against Apple today in the U.S. district court for Eastern Texas, accusing the iPhone maker of infringing on two of its Bluetooth-related patents.

In its complaint, obtained by MacRumors, Rembrandt alleges that all Apple products that support Bluetooth 2.0 or newer with Enhanced Data Rate, including the iPhone 3GS and newer, all iPad and Apple Watch models, several Mac models, HomePod, and others, infringe on U.S. Patent Nos. 8,457,228 and 8,023,580.

Enhanced Data Rate, often shortened to EDR, is a technology that allows for faster Bluetooth data transmission speeds.

The asserted patents describe wireless communication techniques that appear to be related to Bluetooth with EDR, so the alleged infringement could extend to virtually any Bluetooth-enabled device. The same Eastern Texas court ordered Samsung to pay $11 million to Rembrandt last year over the same two patents.

Rembrandt is not the original assignee of the patents, which both expired on December 4, 2018, according to its complaint. The entity says it is still entitled to damages for infringement that occurred prior to the expiration of the patents.

Rembrandt is seeking an award of damages stemming from Apple's infringement in an amount to be proven at trial. In the Samsung case, a jury calculated damages based on a royalty rate of approximately five-and-a-half cents per infringing device. Rembrandt has requested a jury trial against Apple as well.

The case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, who also presided over the Samsung trial.

Rembrandt Wireless Technologies vs Apple Inc by MacRumors on Scribd on Scribd​

Article Link: After Winning $11 Million From Samsung, Rembrandt Sues Apple Over Same Bluetooth-Related Patents

 

[KPandian1]

This is for a patent that has expired, and second-hand to start with; peculiar patent extensions. It covers almost every manufacturer on earth from the late 90's.

Is USA the only nation that gives patent for even water, if I apply for it?

Wonder if Rembrandt's family is around - they can apply for a patent and go after everyone who ever mentioned the name in an article, and this company.

They might have a valid point if the patent holder at the time was not paid anything - essentially IP theft.

Will be interesting to se how the court handles an "American" company as the defendant!

 

[AngerDanger]

Holy ****! I never knew he did engineering and legal work in addition to baroque paintings! He truly is a renaissance man.

 

[gsmornot]

This is for a patent that has expired, and second-hand to start with; peculiar patent extensions. It covers almost every manufacturer on earth from the late 90's.

Is USA the only nation that gives patent for even water, if I apply for it?

Wonder if Rembrandt's family is around - they can apply for a patent and go after everyone who ever mentioned the name in an article, and this company.

They might have a valid point if the patent holder at the time was not paid anything - essentially IP theft.

Will be interesting to se how the court handles an "American" company as the defendant!

You may not be able to patent water but you can patent making it wetter.

 

[squirrellydw]

My question is why don’t all the big tech companies like Apple google ms etc get Congress to pass a law that if you own patents but don’t sell anything you can’t sue? I know it’s a bit tricker then that but patent trolls need to go. At least when Apple Samsung and qualacom sue they make things.

 

[macfacts]

My question is why don’t all the big tech companies like Apple google ms etc get Congress to pass a law that if you own patents but don’t sell anything you can’t sue? I know it’s a bit tricker then that but patent trolls need to go. At least when Apple Samsung and qualacom sue they make things.

So your legal argument for outlawing "patent trolls" is what? You do that like it?

 

[squirrellydw]

Like I said you need to make something that use it. Not just one item but make thousands of units and sell them. Patent trolls just buy patents and never make anything and sue the companies that do.

 

[KPandian1]

This patent is from 1997 root patent. How is this still alive, not make any money until the Samsung case and get granted to another party (or two)?

Someone is playing Apple' game on them.

You may not be able to patent water but you can patent making it wetter.

Holy ****! I never knew he did engineering and legal work in addition to baroque paintings! He truly is a renaissance man.

The clowning is back - nice!

 

[H2SO4]

Like I said you need to make something that use it. Not just one item but make thousands of units and sell them. Patent trolls just buy patents and never make anything and sue the companies that do.

Apple have THOUSANDS of patents they don’t use........

 

[Rocketman]

I bet this simply gets settled.

 

[bernuli]

I’d like to see where that’s money won from these lawsuits goes.

Will Rembrandt pay taxes on this 11M? That might be the only good that comes out of these things

 

[gsmornot]

This patent is from 1997 root patent. How is this still alive, not make any money until the Samsung case and get granted to another party (or two)?

Someone is playing Apple' game on them.





The clowning is back - nice!

You must think I was kidding. Water wetter is a product and it has a patent. Ha

 

[Kabeyun]

So your legal argument for outlawing "patent trolls" is what? You do that like it?

The point is that there currently is no legal argument for outlawing patent trolls. We just want one.

 

[squirrellydw]

Apple have THOUSANDS of patents they don’t use........

Yes I understand that but they also make things, they are a tech company like google and Microsoft etc. patent trolls don’t make anything yet sue everyone that does. That’s not right.

 

[DoubleU]

The point is that there currently is no legal argument for outlawing patent trolls. We just want one.

Maybe only the original patent holder patent holder can sue for damages for patent infringement but anyone who purchases a patent can only sue to prevent others from selling the products that infringe their patent (any revenues from infringing sales could go to the court).

That way patents could be purchased for useful purposes and inventors who lack the means to materialise their inventions can still be compensated for their innovation but buying patents just for the purposes of suing is disinsentivised.

 

[KPandian1]

You must think I was kidding. Water wetter is a product and it has a patent. Ha

Oh. Did not know that.

 

[chinito77]

Patent trolls are truly the scum of the earth. I can understand if you come up with a great idea but have no financial backing, however, their should be some records of you trying to find buyers or investors. Companies or individuals that just sit on ideas with no proof of doing anything with it should have no rights and be labeled as squatters.

 

[tito2020]

Holy ****! I never knew he did engineering and legal work in addition to baroque paintings! He truly is a renaissance man.

Multitasking at it's best

 

[macfacts]

Yes I understand that but they also make things, they are a tech company like google and Microsoft etc. patent trolls don’t make anything yet sue everyone that does. That’s not right.

Why do you think making something should be some threshold for being to own a patent? Is not paying cold hard cash for a patent give the new owner the right to do what ever they want with it? It is their property now.

Or do you think they should not be able to license their patents to manufacturers? Who ever owns the biggest factories can just steal from the little guy, and just "make stuff". The little guy doesn't own a factory and gets his patents stolen from them.

 

[weckart]

Yes I understand that but they also make things, they are a tech company like google and Microsoft etc. patent trolls don’t make anything yet sue everyone that does. That’s not right.

But Apple is sitting on a ton of patents for products that will probably never see the light of day. Apple isn't shy of the courts when it comes to IP, either. Should Apple lose its patents, too?

 

[macfacts]

But Apple is sitting on a ton of patents for products that will probably never see the light of day. Apple isn't shy of the courts when it comes to IP, either. Should Apple lose its patents, too?

Apple is worst than a patent troll. Patent trolls will let you use their tech if you license it. Apple won't let you even use the tech cause Apple won't even license it, even if apple isn't using it.

 

[squirrellydw]

But Apple is sitting on a ton of patents for products that will probably never see the light of day. Apple isn't shy of the courts when it comes to IP, either. Should Apple lose its patents, too?

Yes I do think they should lose them if they are not being used. My whole point was something needs to be done with the system.

 

[GenesisST]

The Rembrandt(s) will be there for you, Apple!

 

[fairuz]

Ugh, trolls being fed.

 

[Kabeyun]

Maybe only the original patent holder patent holder can sue for damages for patent infringement but anyone who purchases a patent can only sue to prevent others from selling the products that infringe their patent (any revenues from infringing sales could go to the court).

That way patents could be purchased for useful purposes and inventors who lack the means to materialise their inventions can still be compensated for their innovation but buying patents just for the purposes of suing is disinsentivised.

How about if patents could only be honored from owning entities that materialize those patents or have the ability to do to. Inventors who can’t/don’t are welcome to sit on their patents for the things they invented, or to netogiate acceptable terms with entities who can/do.

Pretty simple.