Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Corephotonics Sues Apple Again Over Dual-Lens Cameras in iPhone 7 Plus and Later [Updated]
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
First, as I said above, I was responding to the assertion that it is somehow common for Apple to invent a new technology and release it after some time, and have an intervening company patent that technology somewhere in between and prevail in a patent lawsuit. That doesn't happen, and it isn't attempted nearly as much as people on this forum seem to think. I was not commenting on this case specifically.
Second, what you said about prior art is not correct. There are plenty of examples of "secret" prior art.
For example, a patent application is prior art as of the date it is filed, even though it is not published and therefore not public for 18 months (or longer in some cases).
As another example, the Federal Circuit recently held that the public sale of an invention (e.g., SEC filing) makes that invention prior art to other patents, even if details of the invention were never publicly disclosed.
Legality has nothing to do with the word "alleged". The word means "supposed", I'm not sure I believe the company website, but I wouldn't say it's an outright lie.
Did I use the word legality? No, can't find that anywhere. In any case, allege does not means supposed. It means:
allege | əˈlej | verb [reporting verb] claim or assert that someone has done something illegal or wrong, typically without proof that this is the case:
Nothing about the CEO's experience or qualifications appear to be alleged by anyone. MR seemed to agree with this being an inappropriate use of the word and it was edited out of story.
Wait, what?!?!?! This lawsuit wasn't filed in East Texas??
Don't they know ALL patent lawsuits are filed there and have a very good chance of winning regardless of proof?
This is what always intrigued me about patent litigation, is that they are filed in a jurisdiction known to favor the type of lawsuit being brought by the company suing for money.
IMO it should only be filed in the jurisdiction where the company headquarters are. So if it's ********, Idaho, thats where you file the papers.
You're describing the entire point of patents as if that process is a bad thing.
The reason you patent technology prior to releasing it is so you have time to 'get it right.' If a company is holding off on patenting a new technology, and someone else beats them to the patent, they are simply no longer the inventor. There are plenty of cases of technology being developed and invented simultaneously--that's why we have patents.
So you can’t give an example. Gotcha
Its becoming to a world rather than make expensive looking camera in hardware, we can do tricks in software to do the same thing while still making the camera lens relatively cheap.
Its always possible to do the things in software today, in hardware directly. The reason why that doesn't happen is cost. It's allot cheaper to make less than perfect lenses, then re-touch, finally combine in software and pass the result to the user.
No it wouldn't be prior art - prior art has to be public, ie something you could have/should have known about. Things developed in secret are not prior art. There's exceptions for unpublished patents and a few others but just 'developing in secret' isn't enough.
9,185,291 and 9,538,152 are going to hurt a lot. The miniature telephoto lens assembly patents may have some give though.
I vaguely remember reading patents file by Apple (or maybe an acquisition?) about similar dual camera aspects (zoom and FOV) prior to 2016 though I'm probably a little confused as to what exactly I'm thinking about and wayyyyyy too lazy to look.
I vaguely remember reading patents file by Apple (or maybe an acquisition?) about similar dual camera aspects (zoom and FOV) prior to 2016 though I'm probably a little confused as to what exactly I'm thinking about and wayyyyyy too lazy to look.
See https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...nd-iphone-8-plus.2086053/page-4#post-25421272
Yes, developing in secret with nothing more isn't enough, but just a teeny bit more might make it enough. As one prominent example above, developing in secret and then selling the rights to someone else without publicly disclosing the invention would be enough. Hypothetically, developing in secret and then offering a single sample for sale, without ever completing the sale nor disclosing any details in public, would be enough.
To allege is not the same thing as alleged....just like to suppose is not the same thing as supposed.
Not sure how I read legally, must have mixed and matched posts as I had to go back a page.
This is what always intrigued me about patent litigation, is that they are filed in a jurisdiction known to favor the type of lawsuit being brought by the company suing for money.
IMO it should only be filed in the jurisdiction where the company headquarters are. So if it's ********, Idaho, thats where you file the papers.
It is only filed in the jurisdiction where the company’s headquarters are. Do you not realize federal court is for the US. Therefore any federal court in the us is where the jurisdiction is.
Usually you go after the low end, hoping they don’t have enough money to fight and set a precedent. Not too many small players in this area, though. Like, why not go after light.co?
Could be that no one is interested in their technology anymore because they have poorly written patents. If no one licensing their technology, they’re practically circling the drain, so this is a Hail Mary.
With that kind of rock solid information, Baltimore should fit right in...as the janitor.
From my understanding, they were not competing.
One had patents on the assembly itself, and the other on the usage of dual cameras.
It could be that apple could see that it was easy and cheap to buy one, but the second asked for a lot more money or could not be bought, so they decided to just steal the idea and pay less later through the lawsuit.
Wait, what?!?!?! This lawsuit wasn't filed in East Texas??
Don't they know ALL patent lawsuits are filed there and have a very good chance of winning regardless of proof?
That's not true.
I don't think a lot of patents should be granted for things like this.
Dual Camera to take better pictures... its just a different take on 3d photos using two cameras and so on...
[doublepost=1510133034][/doublepost]
Next they will be patenting an air breathing method through a small tube....
Appreciate the NYT reference. The other is behind a paywall. So does it “make sense” for Corephotonics to file in CA or did they have no choice?
Patent holders can still file infringement suits against Apple in the Eastern District of Texas because Apple has an established place of business there. TG Heartland v Kraft only dealt with the interpretation of the residence aspect of 28 USC §1400(b). That provision of law provides that patent infringement suits can be brought either in the district (1) "where the defendant resides" or (2) "where the defendant has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business."
In TG Heartland the Supreme Court interpreted resides, when it comes to a domestic corporation, to only mean the state where it is incorporated. In Apple's case that would be California. But the second option for where a patent infringement suit can be brought is still available.
Last edited: