Smartflash Hits Apple With Second Lawsuit After Winning $533 Million Verdict

[MacRumors]

Just one day after Apple was ordered to pay a $532.9 million settlement to Smartflash LLC for infringing upon its patented technologies, the Texas-based patent licensing firm has sued the Cupertino-based company a second time over the same patents (via Reuters). The new lawsuit covers Apple products that were introduced after the original case was filed, including the iPhone 6, iPhone 6 Plus and iPad Air 2.

"Smartflash filed the complaint to address products that came out too far into the last proceedings to have been included," Smartflash's attorney, Brad Caldwell, told Reuters on Thursday. "Apple cannot claim they don't know about these patents or understand that they are infringing. A diligent jury has already rejected those arguments."

The new lawsuit was filed in the same Tyler, Texas district court on Wednesday night, only hours after a federal jury found Apple guilty in the original trial. Apple plans to appeal the decision in the original lawsuit under the belief that the patents are invalid. The patented technologies relate to digital rights management for downloaded songs, videos and games.

"Smartflash makes no products, has no employees, creates no jobs, has no U.S. presence, and is exploiting our patent system to seek royalties for technology Apple invented," said Kristin Huguet, an Apple spokeswoman. "We refused to pay off this company for the ideas our employees spent years innovating and unfortunately we have been left with no choice but to take this fight up through the court system."

Smartflash LLC fits the definition of a so-called "patent troll," which is generally considered to be a company that licenses patents but does not sell any products or services based on the inventions. The small company has also filed similar lawsuits against Samsung Electronics, Google and Amazon in recent months over the same patents. The new lawsuit against Apple was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.

Article Link: Smartflash Hits Apple With Second Lawsuit After Winning $533 Million Verdict

 

[farewelwilliams]

mmmm, they now have the money to hire more lawyers

 

[sputnikv]

what a joke

 

[TWSS37]

Good for Smartflash!

 

[willmtaylor]

mmmm, they now have the money to hire more lawyers

…and $533 million dollars buys even better lawyers. Yikes!

No, they don't. Not for some time yet.

 

[bushido]

their website alone speaks for itself

 

[macduke]

…and $533 million dollars buys even better lawyers. Yikes!

 

[Number 41]

The size of the verdict made me actually laugh in open court today.

No way Apple ends up paying half a billion dollars for something like this.

----------

Good for Smartflash!

Signed, an employee or stakeholder of Smartflash Patent Trolling LLC.

 

[AppleScruff1]

What about Apple and the patent troll a few years ago?

http://techcrunch.com/2011/12/09/apple-made-a-deal-with-the-devil-no-worse-a-patent-troll/

 

[Four oF NINE]

I don't believe these people.

 

[TWSS37]

The size of the verdict made me actually laugh in open court today.

No way Apple ends up paying half a billion dollars for something like this.

----------



Signed, an employee or stakeholder of Smartflash Patent Trolling LLC.

Nah. Just more at a dig of people on this site who say "Good for Apple!" when they sue for anything, regardless of merit (like say, shapes).

 

[Unggoy Murderer]

We shouldn't ever remove patents, but we really, really need to rethink the ways that they can be enforced.

 

[TWSS37]

No one has posted "there really should be a tab for patent lawsuits, not sure why this is front page news" yet?

 

[macintologist]

My criticism of the term "patent troll" is that it fails to acknowledge that at some point, somebody out there invented the technology in dispute, and at some point Smartflash paid $$$ to that inventor. In order to recoup that cost, "patent trolls" engage in patent lawsuits. If you're opposed to patent trolling, then how is that original inventor going to be compensated?

A more lucid version of my argument is written here: The Other Side of the Debate over Patent Trolls

 

[Number 41]

We shouldn't ever remove patents, but we really, really need to rethink the ways that they can be enforced.

The simple solution would be to limit enforceability of patents once they are sold.

 

[spectrumfox]

How dare they sue our company! Again, even!

Come on, everyone! Let's all call them patent trolls even though we're not in possession of any information to support it!

Who's with me?

I hate patent trolls.

 

[dannyyankou]

I hate patent trolls.

Before anyone screams "Apple Fanboy!", Smartflash probably deserved to win the first trial because the jury saw enough evidence. But suing the exact same company over the exact same patents is ridiculous

 

[Number 41]

My criticism of the term "patent troll" is that it fails to acknowledge that at some point, somebody out there invented the technology in dispute, and at some point Smartflash paid $$$ to that inventor. In order to recoup that cost, "patent trolls" engage in patent lawsuits. If you're opposed to patent trolling, then how is that original inventor going to be compensated?

By either putting the patent to use in an actual product or selling it to a company that puts the patent to use in an actual product.

No company should be able to exist solely for the purpose of buying patents and suing people for money.

 

[nagromme]

Nah. Just more at a dig of people on this site who say "Good for Apple!" when they sue for anything, regardless of merit (like say, shapes).

Maybe a dig at people who SAY Apple has sued for shapes, which was never true

A patent that contains many details including shapes is not a patent that contains only shapes.

 

[jayducharme]

My criticism of the term "patent troll" is that it fails to acknowledge that at some point, somebody out there invented the technology in dispute, and at some point Smartflash paid $$$ to that inventor.

The problem IMO is that the patent trolls come off as little more than a collection agency. They seem more predatory than anything else. How much of the money "recovered" actually goes to the original inventor?

 

[spectrumfox]

Maybe a dig at people who SAY Apple has sued for shapes, which was never true

A patent that contains many details including shapes is not a patent that contains only shapes.

You're right. It wasn't shapes. It was rounded corners.

Apple totally invented rounded corners.

 

[NutsNGum]

Maybe a dig at people who SAY Apple has sued for shapes, which was never true

A patent that contains many details including shapes is not a patent that contains only shapes.

Not exclusively for shapes. Although shape was mentioned in the suit against Samsung, which is pretty ridiculous no matter how you slice it.

 

[bawbac]

No one has posted "there really should be a tab for patent lawsuits, not sure why this is front page news" yet?

Sure is hard not to click on a thread/link you are not interested in reviewing...

 

[nagromme]

My criticism of the term "patent troll" is that it fails to acknowledge that at some point, somebody out there invented the technology in dispute, and at some point Smartflash paid $$$ to that inventor. In order to recoup that cost, "patent trolls" engage in patent lawsuits. If you're opposed to patent trolling, then how is that original inventor going to be compensated?

I think the term troll should be used for unreasonable things, like when that company (trademark, not patent) sued everybody under the sun for using the word "Edge." Or the company that sues small developers for using IAP, instead of Apple--because they can demand back profits and future profits forever, knowing the one guy working from home can never afford a lawyer. It's free money.

(No opinion on whether this case is unreasonable--I don't know enough.)

 

[kingtj]

Bull....

The fact is, patent law SHOULD be revised to require you actually create a marketable product with your concept or else the patent expires/gets revoked. Anything else just encourages these stupid lawsuits -- because, "If you can't innovate? Litigate!"

As far as I'm concerned, anyone can sit around and dream up concepts for things -- but that's worth nothing more than any other type of daydreaming if you don't get out there and DO something with your thoughts.

There's no reason to allow government protection of unused ideas. This just lets people stockpile them, waiting to use them to harass people in court who actually DO the work to produce something with the same or very similar concepts.

My criticism of the term "patent troll" is that it fails to acknowledge that at some point, somebody out there invented the technology in dispute, and at some point Smartflash paid $$$ to that inventor. In order to recoup that cost, "patent trolls" engage in patent lawsuits. If you're opposed to patent trolling, then how is that original inventor going to be compensated?