In what turns out to be a non-event for all those hoping for something juicy, Apple and Cisco settled their dispute over the iPhone trademark. See Apple’s press release. See Cisco’s press release. The interesting thing about these two press releases is not the fact that they are identically worded – look at how the registered trademark symbols (that would be the ® symbols) are used. In Apple’s press release, they use the ® only for Apple, and in Cisco’s press release they use the ® only for Cisco. A rather ironic result in a trademark dispute.
Archive for the ‘Apple patent-related litigation’ Category
Apple and Cisco settle iPhone trademark dispute
Thursday, February 22nd, 2007Quantum v. Apple
Monday, January 22nd, 2007What is this suit about? It looks like it relates to the touch-sensitive click wheel in the iPod.
What patent is it about? 5,730,165 
What’s in the complaint? There are two complaints from Quantum. The originally filed Complaint from December 21, 2005 and an Amended Complaint from May 11, 2006. You can also review Apple’s Answer to the complaint and Cypress Semiconductor’s Answer (they were added as a party in the Amended Complaint).
Um. OK. But what’s it really about? Quantum is claiming that Apple, FingerWorks (now believed to be owned by Apple), and Cypress all infringe the patent. This patent relates to capacitive field sensors. Quantum alleges that the technology covered by this patent (specifically claims 42-62) are used in Apple’s products. Quantum does not mention any specific products, but an educated guess could be made that they’re referring to the iPod click wheel.
OPTi, Inc. v. Apple, Inc.
Sunday, January 21st, 2007What is it? A lawsuit by OPTi, Inc. accusing Apple of infringing three of OPTi’s patents. Read the complaint:
Patents involved:
What are these patents about? CPU memory caching, PCI bus controllers, and making sure that a PCI burst doesn’t overrun a memory update between the CPU cache and the main memory. (At least, that’s what I think’s going on. It’s a little deep on the technology for me and for a cursory review, but that’s the gist of it.)
Why three patents? They’re all related cases. The earliest priority date for these cases is July 7, 1995.
Why did OPTi sue Apple? Good question. These are all CPU and PCI-related patents, and Apple gets that stuff from Intel. My best guess is that OPTi is looking for an “easy” settlement that they can use in leverage in litigation and/or discussions with Intel. The suit that OPTi filed against AMD is just getting underway (AMD filed their response to the complaint from OPTi earlier this week).
Why sue in Texas? This district is known for having a “rocket docket”, which means that the case should move along relatively quickly.
What happens next? Apple will respond to the complaint. I don’t expect to see anything exciting in that document; likely nothing beyond a standard initial response. Don’t be surprised to see this case combined with the AMD case, since they relate to the same patents. This would be done for reasons of “judicial economy” – no need to litigate the same issues twice. Also, don’t be surprised to see Intel added as a party to the Apple case. I would venture to guess that in the supply agreement between Apple and Intel, there is a provision relating to protection against patent infringement claims.
