Intellect-Partners

Tag: patentinfringement

Categories
Mechanical

State Farm® files patent lawsuit against Amazon for Amazon’s Care Hub and Alexa

State Farm® files patent lawsuit against Amazon for Amazon's Care Hub and Alexa

Amazon persistently infringed on State Farm’s patented innovation on the heart of Elder Care Technology to launch a competing product.

State Farm, the biggest insurance provider of vehicles and homes in the U.S., has recorded a claim against Amazon.com and subsidiary organizations for headstrong patent infringement. The case includes technological advancements in elder care known as Sundial®. State Farm doesn’t trifle with the suit, and this is the organization’s first time documenting a patent infringement claim.

The complaint alleges Amazon duplicated State Farm-protected innovation to launch its own contending products to its great many clients. State Farm accepts Amazon’s Care Hub and Alexa adamantly infringe six State Farm licenses issued somewhere in the range of 2021 and 2022.

Consistent with its longstanding obligation to research and development, State Farm contributed several years of research and development work in innovation to help older adults live independently and stay in their homes longer.

Initially, a partnership to present State Farm developments for use with Amazon’s Alexa-empowered gadgets, Amazon noticed State Farm specialists and senior product personnel adapt licensed innovation to work at Amazon’s Alexa platform. State Farm delivered Sundial® in June 2020 while Amazon launched its contending Alexa Care Hub point item in November of that very year.

State Farm informed Amazon that their Care Hub infringes on State Farm licenses, however Amazon was undeterred, and in December 2021, notwithstanding full notice of its infringement of licenses of State Farm, Amazon launched another competing product, Alexa Together, in obtrusive dismissal of State Farm intellectual property rights.

As gone ahead in the complaint documented, Amazon’s conduct in replicating and benefitting from State Farm innovation is stubborn patent infringement. Through its grievance, State Farm tries to stop Amazon’s inappropriate utilization of State Farm patented tech.

State Farm has kept on creating innovative advances since its founding and Sundial is simply one more illustration of how, all through its 100-year history, State Farm has reliably put resources into development to assist with serving its clients. State Farm, alongside its specialized auxiliary BlueOwl, has been granted more than 1,500 U.S. licenses for key specialized developments to date.

Categories
Automotive Mechanical

Waymo is teaming up with Uber on autonomous trucking after a patent infringement standoff

Waymo is teaming up with Uber on autonomous trucking after a patent infringement standoff

Waymo and Uber, previous legal foes and harsh opponents in the autonomous vehicle space, are collaborating to accelerate the adoption of driverless trucks. Waymo is incorporating Uber Freight, the ride-hail organization’s truck business, into the innovation that powers its autonomous big rigs.

This “long-term strategic partnership” will enable fleet owners to more rapidly send trucks equipped with Waymo’s autonomous “driver” for on-demand delivery courses presented by Uber Freight, the organizations said.

The declaration addresses a union between two of the organizations’ significant side projects. Waymo separates its autonomous projects into two divisions: Waymo One, its consumer ride-hailing service, and Waymo Via, which is centered around goods delivery in both trucking and local delivery formats. Uber Freight, which was launched in 2017, connects drivers with shippers, much similar to the organization’s ride-hailing application that matches drivers with those searching for a ride.

Waymo depicts the collaboration as a “deep integration” of each organization’s products, including a mutually developed “product roadmap” to outline how autonomous trucks will get conveyed to Uber’s organization once they are commercially ready. Up to that point, Waymo says it will utilize Uber Freight with its test fleet to better comprehend how driverless trucks will receive and accept delivery orders.

Yet, the partnership goes past beta testing each other’s innovation. Waymo said it will save “billions of miles of its goods-only capacity for the Uber Freight network” in a capacity commitment intended to highlight the seriousness of this partnership.

In the not-so-distant past Waymo and Uber were in a grueling standoff over the eventual fate of autonomous vehicles. In February 2017, the Alphabet-owned organization sued Uber and its auxiliary, self-driving truck startup, Otto, over charges of trade secret theft and patent infringement. Waymo looked for $1.4 billion and a public apology from Uber, however, the ride-hail organization dismissed it as a non-starter.

The case went to trial for almost a year, however, finished quickly when the two sides reached an unexpected settlement agreement. Uber later conceded that it misappropriated a portion of Waymo’s tech and promised to permit it for future use. Anthony Levandowski, a previous Google engineer and the organizer behind Otto, was sentenced to 18 months in jail for taking Waymo’s trade secrets however was subsequently pardoned by former President Donald Trump.

There is no notice of past indiscretions in the declaration. Uber had been developing its self-driving truck as a feature of its bigger interest in autonomous innovation however later off-stacked it to Aurora, a startup established by the previous head of Waymo when it was only Google’s self-driving vehicle project. Expanding costs, in addition to the misfortune in Arizona when an Uber self-driving vehicle struck and killed a passerby, constrained Uber to take back its AV project.

Waymo has made a flurry of arrangements lately pointed toward developing its nascent trucking business. The Google spinoff has said it has no plans to possess or work its fleet of trucks and on second thought will work with truck manufacturers, carriers, and representatives to coordinate its innovation into the business of hauling freight.

Categories
Computer Science Electronics

Sound View Innovations, LLC files another infringement suit against Hulu, LLC

Hulu LLC will again need to confront infringement claims for
a part of Sound View Innovations LLC’s presently expired patent after the
Federal Circuit sent the suit back to the district court for another look.

A California federal court was wrong in concluding that the term “buffer” in the patent case can’t cover a “cache,” the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled in a precedential assessment.

However the Federal Circuit agreed with the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California’s case development in a patent covering methods for streaming media data over public networks, it told the lower court to revisit its utilization of the terms like “buffer” and “cache,” resuscitating a chapter in the long-running question among Hulu and Sound View Innovations.

Sound View Innovations sued Hulu in 2017 for infringing six licenses with Hulu’s web-based video-on-request products. A portion of the issues including one more patent grabbed the eye of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office administration. Just this dispute, including U.S. Patent No. 6,708,213, remained at the Federal Circuit.

Hulu and Sound View Innovations fought at the California court over the significance of a downloading limit in one of the patent’s cases. The region judge sided with Hulu, finding that the case should allude to just a single buffer as opposed to including multiple. Hulu could not have infringed the patent since Sound View’s servers don’t download and retrieve data in the same buffer.

The Federal Circuit decided that the district’s court claim development was right in expecting that the downloading and retrieving acts need to include a similar buffer. Caches, however, which Sound View Innovations depended on for its infringement allegation, could likewise be buffers, the Federal Circuit found. Despite the lower court’s decision, the expressions “do not appear to be mutually exclusive, but instead seem to have at least some overlap in their coverage” in the patent.