Become a MacRumors Supporter for $25/year with no ads, private forums, and more!

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
54,249
16,090



Apple on Tuesday filed suit against Fundamental Innovation Systems International (FISI), preemptively asking a California court to declare that Apple has not infringed upon a number of USB power patents held by FISI.

Lightning-iPhone-7.png

FISI, described by Apple as a patent assertion entity formed for the sole purpose of generating revenue through patent litigation, acquired a portfolio of charging-related patents from BlackBerry that it has asserted against several tech giants, including LG, Samsung, and Huawei, who are now listed as FISI licensees.

Apple believes it could be sued next and is seeking a declaration of non-infringement in advance, according to the complaint:
Defendants have claimed, through letters, claim charts, telephone calls and in-person meetings with Apple personnel in this District, that certain Apple products infringe the Patents-in-Suit and that Apple requires a license to the Patents-in-Suit. However, Apple's products do not infringe the Patents-in-Suit.

This Court should not allow the threat of a future lawsuit to harm and cause uncertainty to Apple's business.
The former BlackBerry patents generally relate to USB-based charging protocols, systems, and methods dating back to the early 2000s.

Apple believes none of its products violate the patents, including its power adapters. One of Apple's consistent defenses throughout its complaint is that its devices and power adapters rely on its proprietary Lightning connector rather than adhering to the USB 2.0 protocols described in the patents.

Apple has demanded a jury trial in the U.S. District Court of Northern California. Beyond a declaration of non-infringement, Apple is seeking legal fees and any other relief which Apple may be entitled to as deemed appropriate by the court.


Article Link: Apple Preemptively Sues 'Patent Troll' to Address Threats Over USB-Related Power Patents
 

G5isAlive

macrumors 65816
Aug 28, 2003
1,384
2,141
Lawyers are a necessary evil, but one does get tired of this type of instance where no one wins.
 
Comment

The Don Onez

macrumors member
Nov 7, 2017
72
237
Huntsville, AL
So if a company sees another company about to fail, and decided to purchase their portfolio to make money off their patents, they are considered patent trolls?

Sounds like a great business decision.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tooloud10
Comment

cmaier

macrumors Penryn
Jul 25, 2007
24,138
30,407
California
So if a company sees another company about to fail, and decided to purchase their portfolio to make money off their patents, they are considered patent trolls?

Sounds like a great business decision.
A patent troll is an entity that asserts patents but does not engage in business using its patented technologies.
[doublepost=1549468969][/doublepost]
Exactly they still get paid win or lose
No, they often do not.
 
Comment

kironin

macrumors 6502a
May 4, 2004
617
251
Texas
So if a company sees another company about to fail, and decided to purchase their portfolio to make money off their patents, they are considered patent trolls?
Sounds like a great business decision.


Yes, definite patent trolls.

It's not the purpose or intent for which patents exist. Really there should be a process in which these patents go in to the public domain after a company fails and is no longer intent on making use of these patents in a productive manner.
 
Comment

Mcmeowmers

macrumors 6502
Jun 1, 2015
426
268
A patent troll is an entity that asserts patents but does not engage in business using its patented technologies.
[doublepost=1549468969][/doublepost]
No, they often do not.

Maybe you should make the distinction between the different types of lawyers and the ones that are more at risk to not getting paid instead of claiming they don't.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lostczech
Comment

cmaier

macrumors Penryn
Jul 25, 2007
24,138
30,407
California
Yes, definite patent trolls.

It's not the purpose or intent for which patents exist. Really there should be a process in which these patents go in to the public domain after a company fails and is no longer intent on making use of these patents in a productive manner.
Where in the constitution, which is where patent rights emanate from, does it say that isn’t what patents are for?
[doublepost=1549469309][/doublepost]
Maybe you should make the distinction between the different types of lawyers and the ones that are more at risk to not getting paid instead of claiming they don't.

Lawyers representing plaintiffs (patentholders) often only get paid if they win.

Lawyers representing accused infringers typically get paid either way.
 
Comment

mattopotamus

macrumors G5
Jun 12, 2012
14,055
4,698
This sounds like Apple may be doing more for the parties currently being sued. I bet something like this causes the patent trolls to drop all cases.
 
Comment

The Don Onez

macrumors member
Nov 7, 2017
72
237
Huntsville, AL
"Should" but that's not the case today.

I don't understand why a patent should go into public domain after a company fails. If their assets are sold off, then the new buyer should be able to pull a profit. Evidently the patents are still useful, or they wouldn't be used.
Yes, definite patent trolls.

It's not the purpose or intent for which patents exist. Really there should be a process in which these patents go in to the public domain after a company fails and is no longer intent on making use of these patents in a productive manner.
 
Comment

mattopotamus

macrumors G5
Jun 12, 2012
14,055
4,698
So if a company sees another company about to fail, and decided to purchase their portfolio to make money off their patents, they are considered patent trolls?

Sounds like a great business decision.

Yes, if they bought the company for the patents and have no intent of actually using them expect for suing people.
 
Comment

mi7chy

macrumors G3
Oct 24, 2014
8,461
9,255
Apple sued for rectangle with rounded corners so they shouldn't be complaining about charging technologies. They are part of the problem.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: apolloa and PC_tech
Comment

The Don Onez

macrumors member
Nov 7, 2017
72
237
Huntsville, AL
That can't be right. A company that comes up with a patent for better fuel efficiency for cars, don't really have to be in the car manufacturing business.
A patent troll is an entity that asserts patents but does not engage in business using its patented technologies.
[doublepost=1549468969][/doublepost]
No, they often do not.
I may be missing the problem with a company only making money due to patents that they hold.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tooloud10
Comment

cmaier

macrumors Penryn
Jul 25, 2007
24,138
30,407
California
That can't be right. A company that comes up with a patent for better fuel efficiency for cars, don't really have to be in the car manufacturing business.

I may be missing the problem with a company only making money due to patents that they hold.

There is no problem. And the definition is right. No one is saying you have to use your patents. You are allowed to be a patent troll. It’s just an epithet people use.
 
Comment

The Don Onez

macrumors member
Nov 7, 2017
72
237
Huntsville, AL
Anyone know why big companies don't see this before the smaller "patent trolling" companies buy these up and use them for lawsuits.

I know LG, Samsung, Apple, ... have more money than some of these trolling companies.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tooloud10
Comment

cmaier

macrumors Penryn
Jul 25, 2007
24,138
30,407
California
Anyone know why big companies don't see this before the smaller "patent trolling" companies buy these up and use them for lawsuits.

I know LG, Samsung, Apple, ... have more money than some of these trolling companies.

Sometimes they buy them. Sometimes protection businesses like RPX buy them. Often they decide they aren’t worth anything. And sometimes they just don’t know about them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Don Onez
Comment

jdiamond

macrumors 6502a
Dec 17, 2008
664
519
So if a company sees another company about to fail, and decided to purchase their portfolio to make money off their patents, they are considered patent trolls?

Sounds like a great business decision.

As someone with experience in the tech field and patents, I would be greatly in favor of abandoning ALL patents. The reason is that the few cases in which a patent describes something that's truly novel and non obvious is so small as to be not worth even considering as a factor.

However, a good intermediate step for those who still see a point to patents would be to disallow ANY revenue from patent ownership from any party that (1) isn't the original inventor of the idea, or (2) isn't actively producing a product incorporating the idea. The purpose of patents is to spur innovation, not make people rich or commoditize ideas. For all those with the knee jerk reaction of "why would people make anything if they couldn't patent it" IMO has never been part of a technical job, in which everything you do, every day, is more sophisticated than most patents. Often it's how you end up using them - the total package - that has the real value. And that's not patentable.
 
Comment
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.