Source: https://vi.scribd.com/document/44759893/Apple-vs-Android-10-12-02
Timestamp: 2018-08-14 06:38:22
Document Index: 511012389

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 1', 'art 2', 'art 2', 'art 1', 'art 1', 'art 2', 'art 3', 'art 2', 'art 1', 'art 2', 'art 2']

Apple vs Android 10.12.02 | I Phone | Apple Inc.
Description: Apple's patent disputes with Android phone makers Motorola and HTC -- 14 charts (state of affairs as per 02 December 2010) and 11 pages of reference material. All patents from all suits in all courts.
Apple's patent disputes with Android phone makers Motorola and HTC -- 14 charts (state of affairs as per 02 December 2010) and 11 pages of reference material. All patents from all suits in all courts.
Apple versus Android The patent battlefield as of 02 Dec 10
The next 13 pages show how this conflict has escalated. Thereafter, reference material.
version 10.12.02.100
5 1 3 6 1 1
3 6 12 6 6
R 2 E 5 6 4 9 3 8 9 6
Move #1 02 Mar 10 Apple versus HTC
Move #1, part 1/2: Apple files an ITC complaint against HTC over the alleged infringement of 10 patents.
© 2010 by Florian Mueller http://fosspatents.blogspot.com Twitter: @FOSSpatents Move #1, part 2/2: Apple also sues HTC in the US District Court for the District of Delaware over the alleged infringement of 10 other patents.
Move #2 12 May 10 HTC versus Apple
Move #2: HTC files an ITC complaint against Apple over the alleged infringement of 5 patents.
Move #3 21 Jun 10 Apple versus HTC: amended complaint plus new complaint
Move #3, part 2/2: ...files a second Delaware complaint against HTC, which contains the '453 and '849 patents dropped from the first complaint as well as two new ones.
© 2010 by Florian Mueller http://fosspatents.blogspot.com Twitter: @FOSSpatents Move #3, part 1/2: Apple amends its original Delaware complaint against HTC, which no longer contains the '453 and '849 patents, but...
Move #4 06 Jul 10 HTC versus Apple (again)
Move #4: As part of its defense against Apple's Delaware complaint, HTC makes counterclaims including the alleged infringement of three of its patents by Apple.
Move #5 06 Oct 10 Motorola versus Apple
Move #5, part 1/3: Motorola files an ITC complaint against Apple over the alleged infringement of 6 patents.
Move #5, part 2/3: Motorola also files complaints against Apple in the Northern District of Illinois over the alleged infringement of the 6 patents it also asserts against Apple before the ITC, plus 6 more.
Move #5, part 3/3: Furthermore, Motorola files a complaint against Apple in the Southern District of Florida over the alleged infringement of 6 patents it doesn't assert against Apple anywhere else.
Move #6 08 Oct 10 Motorola versus Apple: request for declaratory judgment
Move #6: Two days after its three complaints alleging that Apple infringes a total of 18 different Motorola patents, Motorola files in the District of Delaware a request for declaratory judgment that Motorola does not infringe 12 Apple patents (and that those patents be deemed invalid in the first place). 4 Those 12 patents include the 10 patents asserted by Apple 3 against HTC before the ITC as well as 2 of the patents over which Apple sues HTC in the District of Delaware. With this pre-emptive move, Motorola effectively triggered the equivalent of being sued by Apple over those 12 patents.
Move #7 28 Oct 10 Apple drops 4 patents from ITC complaint against HTC
N S D D Move #10: IApple files an unopposed F motion for partial termination L L of the investigation, dropping
four patents. The ITC makes its according determination on 16 Nov 12 2010.
Move #8 29 Oct 10 Apple versus Motorola
6 Move #8, part 2/2: 8 Apple additionally asserts the first of the two sets of 3 patents used in the Western District of Wisconsin R against 9 2 E 5 1 a 7 8 3 1 8 6 7 Motorola through 7 3 3 4 3 9 0 8 6 1 4 6 8 3 0 2 6 3 3 5 complaint it6 4 with 0 2 5 3 5 8 4 7 4 4 1 3 0 2 1 0 4 0 8 files 9 the 1 7 7 1 2 7 US International 5 6 4 1 3 1 9 6 9 6 6 0 7 8 5 2 5 3 3 8 9 6 Trade Commission. 3 12 3 3
Move #8, part 1/2: Apple sues Motorola in the Western District of Wisconsin over 6 patents: the '949 patent previously asserted against 4 HTC in Delaware, as well as 5 patents not previously used. 3 Apple files two simultaneous suits over 3 patents each.
Move #9 05 Nov 10 HTC drops 1 patent from ITC complaint against Apple
Move #9: HTC files an unopposed motion for partial termination of the investigation, dropping one patent. The ITC makes its according determination on 08 Nov 2010.
Move #10 09 Nov 10 Motorola relocates claims regarding 12 patents from Northern Illinois to Western Wisconsin
Move #10, part 2/3: Motorola withdraws its two Illinois complaints (related to 6 patents each) by giving notice of "voluntary dismissal without prejudice" on 09 November 2010, but...
Move #10, part 2/2: ...on the same day makes counterclaims against Apple in the two Wisconsin cases. 6 Those counterclaims are equivalent to the withdrawn Illinois complaints.
Move #11 18 Nov 10 Apple makes counterclaims in Southern Florida
Move #11: WApple makes counterclaims D against Motorola in the Southern Florida case. W Apple asserts 6 patents: 3 smartphone patents I that were previously asserted against HTC, and 3 new ones that allegedly read on various Motorola set-top boxes and DVRs.
Move #12 30 Nov 10 Apple and Motorola file joint motion to stay their claims in one of the two Wisconsin cases
Move #12: The parties file a joint motion in one of the two Wisconsin cases (a case in which they assert the same sets of patents against each other as in their ITC complaints). Apple and Motorola propose a stay concerning each set of claims during the respective ITC investigation.
Move #13 01 Dec 10 Apple asserts the 12 patents related to which Motorola seeks declaratory judgment
12 3 6 6 18
R 2 E 6 4 3 8 6
4 Move #13: 6 Apple amends one of its two 8 3 3 Western Wisconsin complaints and asserts the 12 patents related to which Motorola sought declaratory judgment. 5 1 7 The 3 4 3 day0 8 6 1 4 6 8 3 0 5 5 4 3 following 9 (02 3 5 8 4 7 9 0 2 5December 2010), 4 4 1 3 0 2 1 0 6 0 5 9 5 Apple files3 motion 6 9 6 6 0 7 8 5 2 0 9 6 6 4 1 a 1 9 for dismissal of Motorola's Delaware complaint or, 3 alternatively, transfer to Western Wisconsin. 3 3 6 18
Reference material as per 02 Dec 10 page R-1
Apple Inc. and NeXT Software (both of Cupertino, CA 95014) vs. High Tech Computer Corp. (of Taiwan), HTC America, Inc. (of Bellevue, WA 98005) and Exedea Inc. (of Houston, TX 77036) Partial consolidation stated further below (added Nokia Corp. and Nokia Inc. as defendants). Allegedly infringing products Apple's complaint distinguishes between two groups of products: 1) "Android": computing and mobile communication devices running the Android operating system; examples: HTC Nexus One, HTC Dream (T-Mobile G1), HTC Magic (HTC myTouch 3G), HTC Hero, HTC Droid Eris 2) "DSP": other HTC products with digital signal processing functionality; examples: HTC Touch Pro, HTC Touch Diamond, HTC Touch Pro2, HTC Tilt II, HTC Pure, HTC HD2, HTC Imagio Apple alleges that products in the "Android" group infringe all 10 asserted patents while "DSP" products infringe only the '263 patent. Asserted patents (in order of appearance in documents filed with the ITC) asserted by Apple in original complaint 5,481,721 ("721") Method for providing automatic and dynamic translation of object oriented programming language-based message passing into operating system message passing using proxy objects 5,519,867 ("867") Object-oriented multitasking system dropped as a result of Apple motion of 28 Oct 2010 6,275,983 ("983") Object-oriented operating system 5,566,337 ("337") Method and apparatus for distributing events in an operating system 5,929,852 ("852") Encapsulated network entity reference of a network component system dropped as a result of Apple motion of 28 Oct 2010 5,946,647 ("647") System and method for performing an action on a structure in computer-generated data 5,969,705 ("705") Message protocol for controlling a user interface from an inactive application program 6,343,263 ("263") Real-time signal processing system for serially transmitted data 5,915,131 ("131") Method and apparatus for handling I/O requests utilizing separate programming interfaces to access separate I/O service dropped as a result of Apple motion of 28 Oct 2010 RE39,486 ("RE486") Extensible, replaceable network component system dropped as a result of Apple motion of 28 Oct 2010 Partial consolidation On 26 Apr 2010, the ITC ordered the partial consolidation of case no. 337-TA-704 into this one. As a result, Nokia Corp. (of Espoo, Finland) and Nokia Inc. (of White Plains, NY 10604) have to defend themselves alongside HTC against allegations of infringement of five patents (the '867, '131, '705, '263 and RE486 patents). An unopposed Apple motion for partial termination on 28 Oct 2010 (relating to four patents, three of which were subject to partial consolidation) reduced that subset of patents to two (the '705 and '263 patents). Information concerning Nokia's allegedly infringing products will be provided athe document covering the Apple/Nokia dispute.
Reference material as per 02 Dec 10 page R-2
United States District Court for the District of Delaware Case no. 1:10-cv-00167 -- complaint filed on 02 March 2010
Apple Inc. (of Cupertino, CA 95014) vs. High Tech Computer Corp. (of Taiwan), HTC (B.V.I.) Corp. Inc. (of the British Virgin Islands), HTC America, Inc. (of Bellevue, WA 98005) and Exedea Inc. (of Houston, TX 77036) On 21 June 2010, Apple filed another suit against the same defendants with the same court (case no. 1:10-cv-00544). Allegedly infringing products "certain mobile communication devices including cellular phones and smart phones, including at least phones incorporating the Android Operating System" (item 13 of the complaint) Asserted patents (in order of appearance in the complaint) Apple and HTC asserted patents against each other, and each party asserted a patent ending with "354". In this document, the context always makes it clear which party holds the relevant patent. asserted by Apple in original complaint 7,362,331 ("331") Time-based, non-constant translation of user interface objects between states 7,479,949 ("949") Touch screen device, method, and graphical user interface for determining commands by applying heuristics 7,657,849 ("849") Unlocking a device by performing gestures on an unlock image removed in amended complaint filed on 21 June 2010, simultaneously asserted in another suit (1:10-cv-00544) 7,469,381 ("381") List scrolling and document translation, scaling, and rotation on a touch-screen display 5,920,726 ("726") System and method for managing power conditions within a digital camera device 7,633,076 ("076") Automated response to and sensing of user activity in portable devices 5,848,105 ("105") GMSK signal processors for improved communications capacity and quality 7,383,453 ("453") Conserving power by reducing voltage supplied to an instruction-processing portion of a processor removed in amended complaint filed on 21 June 2010, simultaneously asserted in another suit (1:10-cv-00544) 5,455,599 ("599") Object-oriented graphic system 6,424,354 ("354") Object-oriented event notification system with listener registration of both interests and methods
HTC counterclaims (06 July 2010 answer to first amended complaint)
Allegedly infringing products "personal computers (such as the MacBook, MacBook Pro, iMac, Mac Mini) and mobile communications devices (such as the iPhone, iPhone 3G, iPhone 3GS)" (item 91 of 06 July 2010 HTC answer to Apple's first amended complaint) Asserted patents (in order of appearance in the court filing) asserted by HTC in counterclaims (part of answer to first amended complaint, dated 06 July 2010) 7,278,032 ("032") Circuit and operating method for integrated interface of PDA and wireless communication system 5,377,354 ("354") Method and system for sorting and prioritizing electronic mail messages 6,188,578 ("578") Integrated circuit package with multiple heat dissipation paths
Reference material as per 02 Dec 10 page R-3
United States International Trade Commission Investigation no. 337-TA-721 on "certain portable electronic devices and related software" -complaint filed on 12 May 2010
HTC Corp. (of Taiwan) vs. Apple Inc. (of Cupertino, CA 95014) Allegedly infringing products "The Accused Products include, but are not limited to, Apple's iPod, iPhone, and iPad product lines." (item 14 of the complaint) The infringement claim charts attached to the original complaint use the iPhone as an example of an allegedly infringing product. Chapter VII of the complaint states as "specific instances" the iPhone 3GS, iPod Touch, and iPad. Asserted patents (in order of appearance in documents filed with the ITC) asserted by HTC in original complaint 6,999,800 ("800") Method for power management of a smart phone 5,541,988 ("988") Telephone dialler [sic] with a personalized page organization of telephone directory memory 6,058,183 ("183") Telephone dialler [sic] with a personalized page organization of telephone directory memory dropped as a result of HTC motion (dated 05 November 2010) for partial termination 6,320,957 ("957") Telephone dialler [sic] with a personalized page organization of telephone directory memory 7,716,505 ("505") Power control methods for a portable electronic device
United States District Court for the District of Delaware Case no. 1:10-cv-00544 -- complaint filed on 21 June 2010
Apple Inc. (of Cupertino, CA 95014) vs. High Tech Computer Corp. (of Taiwan), HTC (B.V.I.) Corp. Inc. (of the British Virgin Islands), HTC America, Inc. (of Bellevue, WA 98005) and Exedea Inc. (of Houston, TX 77036) On 02 March 2010, Apple had already filed a suit against the same defendants with the same court (case no. 1:10-cv-00167). Allegedly infringing products "certain mobile communication devices including cellular phones and smart phones, including at least phones incorporating the Android Operating System" (item 13 of the complaint) Asserted patents (in order of appearance in the complaint) asserted by Apple in original complaint 7,383,453 ("453") Conserving power by reducing voltage supplied to an instruction-processing portion of a processor previously asserted in (but dropped from) case 1:10-cv-00167 7,657,849 ("849") Unlocking a device by performing gestures on an unlock image previously asserted in (but dropped from) case 1:10-cv-00167 6,282,646 ("646") System for real-time adaptation to changes in display configuration 7,380,116 ("116") System for real-time adaptation to changes in display configuration
Reference material as per 02 Dec 10 page R-4
United States International Trade Commission Investigation no. 337-TA-745 on "certain wireless devices, portable music and data processing devices, computers and components thereof" -- complaint filed on 06 October 2010
Motorola Mobility, Inc. (of Libertyville, IL 60048) vs. Apple Inc. (of Cupertino, CA 95014) Allegedly infringing products "The accused wireless communication devices include, but are not limited to, the Apple iPhone 3G, the Apple iPhone 3GS and the Apple iPhone 4.." (item 18 of the complaint) "The accused portable music and data processing devices include, but are not limited to, the iPod touch" (item 19 of the complaint) "The accused computers include, but are not limited to, the AppleTV, Mac Pro, iMac, Mac mini, MacBook Pro, MacBook, MacBook Air, iPad and iPad 3G" (item 20 of the complaint) Examples of allegedly infringing products besides the ones mentioned above are given in connection with the alleged infringement of the '333 patent (the Apple App Store), and in connection with the alleged infringement of the '223 patent (AppleTV). Asserted patents (in order of appearance in documents filed with the ITC) asserted by Motorola in original complaint 6,272,333 ("333") Method and apparatus in a wireless communication system for controlling a delivery of data 6,246,862 ("862") Sensor controlled user interface for portable communication device 6,246,697 ("697") Method and system for generating a complex pseudonoise sequence for processing a code division multiple access signal 5,359,317 ("317") Method and apparatus for selectively storing a portion of a received message in a selective call receiver 5,636,223 ("223") Methods of adaptive channel access attempts 7,751,826 ("826") System and method for E911 location privacy protection All infringement allegations are open-ended ("include, but are not limited to"). However, the specific examples provided in the complaint indicate which patents Motorola asserts against which types of products. Below, a matrix of asserted patents and accused products.
re 4 ro Sto Air p ch k kP ok G Ap ou oo TV oo o cB d3 cB dT ple cB ple ac Ap Ma Ap Ma iPa iPo Ma iM
S 3G 3G 4 ne ne ne d o o ho Ph Ph iPa i i iP
o Pr ac M
'333 '862 '697 '317 '223 '826
Reference material as per 02 Dec 10 page R-5
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois Case no. 1:10-cv-06381 -- complaint filed on 06 October 2010 but withdrawn on 09 November 2010
Motorola Mobility, Inc. (of Libertyville, IL 60048) vs. Apple, Inc. (of Cupertino, CA 95014) Simultaneously with this complaint, Motorola filed another suit against the same defendant with the same court (case no. 1:10-cv-06385; below). On 09 November 2010, Motorola withdrew this complaint (dismissal without prejudice) and reintroduced the same infringement allegations in another suit (as counterclaims in case no. 1:10-cv-00662 in the Western District of Wisconsin). Allegedly infringing products "Apple iPhone, the Apple iPhone 3G, the Apple iPhone 3GS, the Apple iPhone 4, the Apple iPad, the Apple iPad with 3G, each generation of the Apple iPod Touch, the Apple MacBook, the Apple MacBook Pro, the Apple MacBook Air, the Apple iMac, the Apple Mac mini and the Apple Mac Pro" (for a matrix indicating which patents allegedly read on which of the aforementioned products, see section on Western District of Wisconsin case no. 1:10-cv-00662) Asserted patents (in order of appearance in the complaint) asserted by Motorola in original complaint -- entire complaint withdrawn on 09 November 2010 5,311,516 ("516") Paging system using message fragmentation to redistribute traffic 5,319,712 ("712") Method and apparatus for providing cryptographic protection of data stream in a communication system 5,490,230 ("230") Digital speech coder having optimized signal energy parameters 5,572,193 ("193") Method for authentication and protection of subscribers in telecommunications systems 6,175,559 ("559") Method for generating preamble sequences in a code division multiple access system 6,359,898 ("898") Method for performing a countdown function during a mobile-originated transfer for a packet radio system
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois Case no. 1:10-cv-06385 -- complaint filed on 06 October 2010 but withdrawn on 09 November 2010
Motorola Mobility, Inc. (of Libertyville, IL 60048) vs. Apple, Inc. (of Cupertino, CA 95014) Simultaneously with this complaint, Motorola filed another suit against the same defendant with the same court (case no. 1:10-cv-06381; above). On 09 November 2010, Motorola withdrew this complaint (dismissal without prejudice) and reintroduced the same infringement allegations in another suit (as counterclaims in case no. 1:10-cv-00661 in the Western District of Wisconsin). Allegedly infringing products & asserted patents (in order of appearance in the complaint) The relevant patents and products (and the relationships between them) are consistent with the original complaint that led to ITC investigation no. 337-TA-745 (previous page).
Reference material as per 02 Dec 10 page R-6
United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida Case no. 1:10-cv-23580 -- complaint filed on 06 October 2010
Motorola Mobility, Inc. (of Libertyville, IL 60048) vs. Apple, Inc. (of Cupertino, CA 95014) Allegedly infringing products MobileMe service, Apple App Store, iPhone, iPhone 3G, iPhone 3GS, iPhone 4, iPad, iPad 3G, iPod Touch (each generation), MacBook, MacBook Pro, MacBook Air, iMac, Mac mini, Mac Pro Asserted patents (in order of appearance in the complaint) asserted by Motorola in original complaint 5,710,987 ("987") Receiver having concealed external antenna 5,754,119 ("119") Multiple pager status synchronization system and method 5,958,006 ("006") Method and apparatus for communicating summarized data 6,008,737 ("737") Apparatus for controlling utilization of software added to a portable communication device 6,101,531 ("531") System for communicating user-selected criteria filter prepared at wireless client to communication server for filtering data transferred from host to said wireless client 6,377,161 ("161") Method and apparatus in a wireless messaging system for facilitating an exchange of address information All infringement allegations are open-ended ("include, but are not limited to"). However, the specific examples provided in the complaint indicate which patents Motorola asserts against which types of products. Below, a matrix of asserted patents and accused products.
© 2010 by Florian Mueller http://fosspatents.blogspot.com Twitter: @FOSSpatents '987 '119 '006 '737 '531 '161
e tor ro ir * e pS ch k kP kA G Ap ou oo oo eM oo bil cB d3 cB dT cB ple ac Mo Ma Ap Ma iPa iPo Ma iM
* all iPod Touch product generations
On 18 November 2010, Apple brought counterclaims against Motorola (more detail on the next page).
Reference material as per 02 Dec 10 page R-7
United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida Case no. 1:10-cv-23580 -- continued from previous page Apple counterclaims (18 November 2010 answer to original complaint)
Allegedly infringing products The first three patents ('560, '509 and '456) relate to "set-top and DVR-boxes that provide or operate in conunction with an interactive Guide (for TV or DVR functions)". The other three patents relate to Android-based smartphones. More detail below the patent list. Asserted patents (in order of appearance in the court filing) asserted by Apple in 18 November 2010 answer to original complaint 5,583,560 ("560") Method and apparatus for audio-visual interface for the selective display of listing information on a display 5,594,509 ("509") Method and apparatus for audio-visual interface for the display of multiple levels of information on a display 5,621,456 ("456") Methods and apparatus for audio-visual interface for the display of multiple program categories 6,282,646 ("646") System for real-time adaptation to changes in display configuration 7,380,116 ("116") System for real-time adaptation to changes in display configuration 7,657,849 ("849") Unlocking a device by performing gestures on an unlock image All infringement allegations are open-ended ("include, but are not limited to"). However, the specific examples provided in the complaint indicate which patents Apple asserts against which types of products: '560, '509 and '456 patents: "set-top and DVR boxes that provide or operate in conjunction with an interactive Guide (for TV or DVR functions), including, but not limited to, the following products: DCT700, DCT2500, DCT3400, DCT3080, DCT6200, DCT6208, DCT6400, DCT6412, DCX700, DCX3200 , DCX3200 P2, DCX3400, DCH70, DCH100 , DCH200, DCH3200, DCH3416, DCH6200, DCH6416, DTA100, QIP2500, QIP2708, QIP6200, QIP6416, QIP7100 and QIP7216" '646 and '116 patents: "mobile devices with a video output, including, but not limited to, the Droid X product." '849 patent: "mobile devices with lock pattern and/or slide unlock icon to unlock functionality, including but not limited to the Droid, Droid 2, Droid X, Droid Pro, BackFlip, Charm, Cliq, Cliq XT, Defy, Devour, Milestone, Bravo, Citrus, Flipout, Flipside and i1 products."
Reference material as per 02 Dec 10 page R-8
United States District Court for the District of Delaware Case no. 1:10-cv-00867 -- complaint for declaratory relief filed on 08 October 2010
Motorola Mobility, Inc. (of Libertyville, IL 60048) vs. Apple, Inc. and NeXT Software, Inc. (both of Cupertino, CA 95014) Motorola sought a judgment declaring 12 Apple patents invalid and not infringed by Motorola. On 01 December 2010, Apple (and its NeXT subsidiary) asserted Motorola's infringement of those 12 patents (and, of course, insisted on their validity) through an amended complaint in case no. 1:10-cv-00662 in the Western District of Wisconsin. The following day, Apple filed a motion in Delaware that this declaratory judgment case should be (ideally) dismissed or (alternatively) transferred to the Western District of Wisconsin.. Products related to which Motorola requested declaratory judgment ""Apple has professed rights [...] based on Motorola Mobility's activities related to Motorola Mobility's Droid, Droid 2, Droid X, Cliq, Cliq XT, BackFlip, Devour A555, i1 and Charm products" Relevant patents list provided in section on case no. 1:10-cv-00662 in the Western District of Wisconsin
United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin Case no. 1:10-cv-00661 -- complaint filed on 29 October 2010
© 2010 by Florian Mueller http://fosspatents.blogspot.com Twitter: @FOSSpatents Apple, Inc. (of Cupertino, CA 95014) vs. Motorola, Inc. (of Schaumburg, IL 60196) and Motorola Mobility, Inc. (of Libertyville, IL 60048) On the day of the complaint, Apple filed another suit against the same defendants with the same court (case no. 1:10-cv-00662). Allegedly infringing products Android-based mobile devices (for detail see the section on ITC investigation no. 337-TA-750). Asserted patents (in order of appearance in the complaint) asserted by Apple in original complaint The 3 patents asserted by Apple in the original complaint are listed in the section on ITC investigation no. 337-TA-750.
Motorola Mobility counterclaims (18 November 2010 answer to original complaint)
On 09 November 2010, Motorola Mobiility made counterclaims alleging the infringement of 6 of its patents. Those patents were previously asserted in the ITC complaint that gave rise to investigation no. 337-TA-745.
Joint motion to stay claims and counterclaims
On 30 November 2010, the parties filed a joint motion to stay Apple's claims and Motorola Mobility's counterclaims during the relevant ITC investigations of the same infringement allegations.
Reference material as per 02 Dec 10 page R-9
United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin Case no. 1:10-cv-00662 -- complaint filed on 29 October 2010
Apple, Inc. (of Cupertino, CA 95014) vs. Motorola, Inc. (of Schaumburg, IL 60196) and Motorola Mobility, Inc. (of Libertyville, IL 60048) On the day of the complaint, Apple filed another suit against the same defendants with the same court (case no. 1:10-cv-00662). Allegedly infringing products "mobile devices and related software including but not limited to [Motorola's] Android mobile phone handsets"; "mobile devices, such as smartphones, and associated software, including operating systems, user interfaces, and other application software designed for use on, and loaded onto, such devices"; examples provided by Apple: "Droid, Droid 2, Droid X, Cliq, Cliq XT, BackFlip, Devour A555, Devour i1, and Charm"; in a footnote, Apple expects "that Motorola will introduce additional products in the future that will also infringe the [patents]." Asserted patents (in order of appearance in the complaint) asserted by Apple in original complaint 7,479,949 ("949") Touch screen device, method, and graphical user interface for determining commands by applying heuristics 6,493,002 ("002") Method and apparatus for displaying and accessing control and status information in a computer system 5,838,315 ("315") Support for custom user-interaction elements in a graphical, event-driven computer system . asserted by Apple in first amended complaint (of 01 December 2010) in addition to original list of patents RE 39,486 ("RE486") Extensible, replaceable network component system 6,424,354 ("354") Object-oriented event notification system with listener registration of both interests and methods 6,343,263 ("263") Real-time signal processing system for serially transmitted data 6,275,983 ("983") Object-oriented operating system 5,969,705 ("705") Message protocol for controlling a user interface from an inactive application program 5,946,647 ("647") System and method for performing an action on a structure in computer-generated data 5,929,852 ("852") Encapsulated network entity reference of a network component system 5,915,131 ("131") Method and apparatus for handling I/O requests utilizing separate programming interfaces to access separate I/O services 5,566,337 ("337") Method and apparatus for distributing events in an operating system 5,519,867 ("867") Object-oriented multitasking system 5,481,721 ("721") Method for providing automatic and dynamic translation of object oriented programming language-based message passing into operation system message passing using proxy objects 5,455,599 ("599") Object-oriented graphic system On 09 November 2010, Motorola Mobiility made counterclaims alleging the infringement of 6 of its patents (next page).
Reference material as per 02 Dec 10 page R-10
United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin Case no. 1:10-cv-00662 -- continued from previous page Motorola Mobility counterclaims (09 November 2010 answer to original complaint)
Allegedly infringing products iPhone, iPhone 3G, iPhone 3GS, iPhone 4, iPad, iPad 3G, iPod Touch (each generation), MacBook, MacBook Pro, MacBook Air, iMac, Mac mini, Mac Pro Asserted patents (in order of appearance in the court filing) asserted by Motorola Mobility in 09 November 2010 answer to original complaint 5,311,516 ("516") Paging system using message fragmentation to redistribute traffic 5,319,712 ("712") Method and apparatus for providing cryptographic protection of data stream in a communication system 5,490,230 ("230") Digital speech coder having optimized signal energy parameters 5,572,193 ("193") Method for authentication and protection of subscribers in telecommunications systems 6,175,559 ("559") Method for generating preamble sequences in a code division multiple access system 6,359,898 ("898") Method for performing a countdown function during a mobile-originated transfer for a packet radio system All infringement allegations are open-ended ("include, but are not limited to"). However, the specific examples provided in the complaint indicate which patents Motorola asserts against which types of products. Below, a matrix of asserted patents and accused products.
© 2010 by Florian Mueller http://fosspatents.blogspot.com Twitter: @FOSSpatents '516 '712 '230 '193 '559 '898
S 3G G/ 3 4 ne ne d ho ho iPa iP iP
o Pr Air h* uc ok ok ok G o o o o cB d3 cB dT cB ac Ma iPa Ma iPo Ma iM
Reference material as per 02 Dec 10 page R-11
United States International Trade Commission Investigation no. 337-TA-750 on "certain mobile devices and related software" -complaint filed on 29 October 2010
Apple Inc. (of Cupertino, CA 95014) vs. Motorola, Inc. (of Schaumburg, IL 60196) and Motorola Mobility, Inc. (of Libertyville, IL 60048) Allegedly infringing products "mobile devices and related software including but not limited to [Motorola's] Android mobile phone handsets"; "mobile devices, such as smartphones, and associated software, including operating systems, user interfaces, and other application software designed for use on, and loaded onto, such devices"; examples provided by Apple: "Droid, Droid 2, Droid X, Cliq, Cliq XT, BackFlip, Devour A555, i1, and Charm"; in a footnote, Apple expects "that Motorola will introduce additional products in the future that will also infringe the [patents]." Asserted patents (in order of appearance in documents filed with the ITC) asserted by Apple in original complaint 7,812,828 ("828") Ellipse fitting for multi-touch surfaces 7,663,607 ("607") Multipoint touchscreen 5,379,430 ("430") Object-oriented system locator system
Documents Similar To Apple vs Android 10.12.02
File Cuoi Cung