Intellect-Partners

Tag: patentinfringement

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.

Categories
Computer Science Electronics

PayPal, Apple Pay Accused of Patent Infringement by Fintiv

PayPal, Apple Pay Accused of Patent Infringement by Fintiv

Mobile payments and commerce platform Fintiv has hit PayPal and Apple Pay with a claim on charges of patent infringement. Fintiv documented a comparative claim against Walmart as well.

Fintiv blamed PayPal for infringing five of its licenses connected with payments functionality, as per court reports. The suit Fintiv brought against Walmart charges that proprietary secrets were utilized improperly. The claim additionally charges that the retail goliath infringed a similar installment patent as PayPal, explicitly, utilizing phone innovation to process payments.

“These three cases are pretty significant for the tech community as a whole,” says Court Coursey, a director with Fintiv. “If you see one of these cases become a victory, I think you’ll see the rest become license deals pretty quickly.”

The complaint against PayPal was documented recently and looks for harms, sovereignties, and related court and legal expenses, plus interest.

“We’re talking billions of dollars here,” Sol Saad, a Florida tech investment banker, told in certain reports. His firms have advised Fintiv in the past. “This would include future royalties but also back payments for prior years of infringement.”

“Fintiv has a strong patent portfolio of over 150 patents, in addition to a large number of patent continuations and patents pending,” Saad told in reports. He explained that Mozido, Fintiv’s predecessor company, invented and patented the ideas necessary to create the mobile payments before the technology to power those ideas had been developed and has followed up with subsequent patents as the technology to support them emerged.

Mozido, Fintiv’s ancestor organization, established a phone-based payment settlement business with Western Union and Radio Shack in early 2008.

Fintiv at first hit Apple with a claim in December 2018. In October 2019, Apple documented a request to take a gander at the licenses. Apple was denied the patent review in May 2020. A trial was initially set for March 2021.

Presently the trial is planned for June in United States District Court for the Western District of Texas in June 2022.

Categories
Computer Science Electronics Others

Revitalization Partners Sues Google and YouTube for Patent Infringement

Arriving at an essential achievement in its four-year venture as the court-appointed receiver for pioneering digital information and advertising organization AudienceScience Inc., Seattle-based Revitalization Partners has recorded suit against Google LLC and YouTube LLC for infringing on three of the licenses held by the receivership and the previous organization’s estate.

Revitalization Partners, for AudienceScience, claims that both Google and YouTube infringe upon the innovations of AudienceScience by choosing and assigning which advertising messages are incorporated when a client requests a web page. The intellectual property litigation is trusted to be the first-ever that a state receiver-initiated. Revitalization Partners at first found the patents after AudienceScience stopped everyday organization operations in 2017.

AudienceScience invented and licensed a significant number of the fundamental advancements utilized across the digital advertising industry today. Among its developments: the industry’s first behavioral targeting product, empowering publishers all through the world to serve more significant advertising based on both user history and page context. This advancement started the empowerment of advertisers to purchase highly targeted digital media.

Revitalization Partners co-founder and principal Al Davis said his firm found approximately 32 AudienceScience patents in the wake of being delegated by the court to deal with the receivership cycle. Working with Pat Scanlon, head of RP’s advanced business practice, the firm started developing a methodology to adapt the worth of those proprietary techs to fulfill creditor obligations. The suit against Google and YouTube addresses the first of those legal actions.

Mr. Davis said, “As we did our due diligence, we quickly recognized how the patents were being infringed upon by two of the largest and most influential companies in the online world. Now that we’ve received the necessary approvals from the Washington State receivership court to pursue litigation, we are in a position to execute and potentially recover a significant amount of value for creditors using these and other patents.”

Revitalization Partners involved in Silicon Valley IP patent case lead counsel Robert Kramer of the Feinberg Day Kramer Alberti Lim Tonkovich and Belloli LLP firm to represent the firm in the case against Google and YouTube, alongside local counsel The Dacus Firm in Tyler, Texas.