Mirror Worlds v. Apple. In 2008, the technology company Mirror Worlds, LLC filed suit against Apple, Inc. for patent infringement in the US District Court.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
12-13 May 2014 Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Advertisements

Fashion Boutique v. Fendi USA The case of improper evidence supporting plaintiffs claims and their subsequent appeal of District Courts decision.
C&A v. G-Star. Overview After a verdict by the Dutch court on 9 August 2011, fashion brand C&A was ordered to cease large-scale infringements of the trade.
Christian Louboutin v. Yves Saint Laurent. In April 2011, footwear designer Christian Louboutin filed a suit against luxury design house Yves Saint Laurent,
Samsung Digital Signage
Excalibur Bakery V. Excellent Bakery The case of invalid trademark.
Page 1 / 18 Internet Traffic Monitor IM Page 2 / 18 Outline Product Overview Product Features Product Application Web UI.
Copyright © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall
File Management Chapter 3
Alberta printed circuits v. Canada Revenue Agency.
Vodafone Group Plc. v. Indian tax authorities. In 2007 Vodafone International purchased the Indian mobile telephony assets of Hong Kong-based Hutchison.
Burger King Corporation v. C.R. Weaver; M-W-M, Inc.
WTO Dispute DS362 China vs. United States
Brian Andreas v. Volkswagen of America, Inc.. In 1994 Andreas, an artist, created an image that included the words, “most people don’t know that there.
ROWAN COUNTY PUBLIC LIBRARY Using iTunes. Objectives Today you will learn how to: Navigate the iTunes interface Add music to the iTunes library Navigate.
Greg Gardella Patent Reexamination: Effective Strategy for Litigating Infringement Claims Best Practices for Pursuing and Defending Parallel Proceedings.
Warm-up: Feb. 20 Label the image on your own sheet.
Endemol v. Abbot Reif Hameiri. The Dutch international television production and distribution company “Endemol” has filed a lawsuit against Israeli production.
Balance Dynamics Corporation v. Schmitt Industries, Incorporated.
IPR Litigation System & Recent Case in Korea Hee-Young JEONG Judge of Daejeon District Court, KOREA April 22, 2015.
Slides prepared by Cyndi Chie and Sarah Frye1 A Gift of Fire Third edition Sara Baase Chapter 4: Intellectual Property.
Apple iPhone. Visual Voic allows you to go directly to any of your messages without listening to the prior messages. So you can quickly select the.
Bryan Trinh. Background MercExchange, a small Virginia based company, held two patents on ecommerce granted in 1998 at the time when the company tried.
Apple iPad Presentation By: Leigh Casal. Apple iPad Video.
Apple MAC OS X Leopard Caitlin Smith HTM304 October 18, 2007.
13 C H A P T E R © 2001 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All Rights Reserved1 Downloading from the Internet The graphical user interface has made it so.
© 2012 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Amazing apps. Windows 8 comes with built-in apps for the things you do most to help get your favorite.
Software Patents for Higher Education ICPL August 12, 2008.
Company/Product Overview. You have lots of files all over the place.
Introduction to. What is Office 365 Office 365 is the same Office you already know and use every day. Office 365 is powered by “the cloud” which is a.
Remember Adam Smith and the pillars of a free market system?
Mattel, Inc. V. MGA Entertainment, Inc.. In 2004, MGA Entertainment’s Bratz range of dolls emerged on the market, they presented severe competition to.
2.3 Files, Folders, and Removable Storage Formerly Titled Overthrowing a Banana Republic in Five Days or Less.
GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) v. Canada revenue agency (CRA)
Cambrige University Press et al. V. Georgia State Univeristy.
Patent Cases MM 350 Intellectual Property Law and New Media Steve Baron October 5, 2010.
Temple Island Collection V. New English Teas The case of photograph infringement.
DHL Corporation and Subsidiaries V. Commissioner
Preparing iLife ‘09. iLife ‘09 iLife is an amazing suite of applications that enables us to do all sorts of amazing things. The suite consists of:  iPhoto,
Web Page Design I Basic Computer Terms “How the Internet & the World Wide Web (www) Works”
Caraco Pharmaceuticals Vs. Novo Nordisk The case of unclear and unfair patenting of generic drugs.
Arlington Industies, Inc. v. Bridgeport Fittings, Inc.
With Microsoft ® Office e© 2013 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall1 Common Features Using the Common Features of Microsoft ® Office.
Microsoft Office 2008 for Mac – Illustrated Unit C: Understanding File Management.
1 1 AIPLA Firm Logo American Intellectual Property Law Association The Presumption of Patent Validity in the U.S. Tom Engellenner AIPLA Presentation to.
EBay v. MercExchange The 8-Year See-Saw Battle Jennifer Pang University of California, Berkeley IEOR 2009 IEOR 190G: Patent Engineering (Fall 08)
Shonda Brown, et al. v. Ruallam Enterprises, Inc..
© COPYRIGHT DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Post Grant Proceedings Before the USPTO and Litigation Strategies Under the AIA Panelists:David.
Veritas v. Commissioner. In November 1999, Veritas Software Corp. (Veritas US – now prt of Symantec Corp.) and its wholly owned foreign subsidiary Veritas.
Maruti Suzuki Indian V. India Transfer Pricing Office.
Microsoft vs. Eolas Presented by Dylan Caponi on December 1, 2008 UC Berkeley IEOR190G.
Computer basics. Getting to know the os In this section, we will discussing some key aspects to your Mac OS such as: DesktopDesktop Opening and closing.
LAW OF COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY FALL 2015 © 2015 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS Anatomy of Two Patent Cases Mirror Worlds v. Apple (2011) Apple v. Samsung (2012) Michael.
LAW OF COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY FALL 2015 © 2015 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS Software Patents Michael I. Shamos, Ph.D., J.D. Institute for Software Research School of.
Introduction TO Network Administration
 The Mac Book Pro is the recent Mac laptop to come out from the maker Apple.  It tops the previous Apple laptops that have come out from apple by.
Slides prepared by Cyndi Chie and Sarah Frye1 A Gift of Fire Third edition Sara Baase Chapter 4: Intellectual Property.
The types of computers and their functionalities.
Introduction to Digital Media 1. What is digital media? Digital media is a form of electronic media where data is stored in digital (as opposed to analog)
Google v. Louis Vuitton. Louis Vuitton, which is part of the LVMH group of brands including Moet & Chandon and Dior, had argued that Google was acting.
Web 2.0: Concepts and Applications 6 Linking Data.
Technology Applications Mr. Moses
A Gift of Fire Third edition Sara Baase
Pickit Business.
MM 350 Intellectual Property Law and New Media
Presented by Sharper Training Solutions, Inc.
The Judicial System Structure.
Samsung vs. Apple, Inc. First US trial verdict – Aug 24, 2012
Anatomy of Two Patent Cases Mirror Worlds v. Apple (2011) Apple v
It’s in the Clouds? An Overview of Cloud Services
Presentation transcript:

Mirror Worlds v. Apple

In 2008, the technology company Mirror Worlds, LLC filed suit against Apple, Inc. for patent infringement in the US District Court in Tyler, Texas. Mirror Worlds claimed that three of Apple’s Mac computer programs (Cover Flow, Time Machine, and Spotlight) infringed patents that Mirror Worlds had registered for a way to display documents on a computer screen. Apple challenged the validity of these patents and claimed that they had not been infringed. Case Overview

The Arguments Mirror World’s Arguments: That Apple’s programs Spotlight, Time Machine, and Cover Flow infringed patents that Mirror World’s had filed for its software, Scopeware which organizes a user's files into time-based "streams" and make such data more easily accessible across networks “That Apple both directly and indirectly infringed its patents and that the infringement was willful” Apple’s Arguments: That Apple’s programs did not infringe the patents in question (“the ’227 patent”, “the ’313 patent”, and “the ’427 patent”) because the patents are invalid and that in using Apple’s programs (Spotlight, Time Machine, and Cover Flow), users do not necessarily follow the steps outlined in the patented processes

Central Dispute Did Apple’s three programs actually infringe three registered US patents - (“the ’227 patent”), (“the ’313 patent”), and (“the ’427 patent”)? Did Apple “automatically” infringe the patents since the accused Spotlight feature is “built into the core” of Apple’s operating systems that “are always on and necessarily practiced by Apple’s computers.” Mirror World’s patents protected the following functions: – 1) the documents are stored in one or more chronologically ordered streams; – 2) the location and nature of file storage is transparent to the user; – 3) information is organized as needed instead of at the time the document is created; – 4) sophisticated logic is provided for summarizing a large group of related documents at the time a user wants a concise overview; and – 5) archiving is automatic.

Functions Protected by Patents As illustrated here, the three patents registered by Mirror Worlds describe displaying a stream of data, documents, or pictures as stacked images so the images appear to be receding Image from U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas Tyler Division Case Materials, Case No. 6:08 CV 88

Programs in Question The three Apple Mac OSX and iOS programs in question are the following: Spotlight: function that searches the computer’s hard drive Cover Flow: function that lets users scroll through album cover art when browsing for documents, pictures, and music in their iTunes libraries. Time Machine: function that automatically backs up system files, applications, accounts, preferences, music, photos, movies, and documents on a Mac computer

Court Decision 2010 US District Court Decision in Texas: the jury ruled that Apple had infringed all three patents and awarded Mirror Worlds, LLC $625.5 Million in damages ($208.5 million per infringement) 2010 Appeal: Apple appeals decision and judge stays the ruling 2011 Final Court Decision: U.S. District Judge Leonard E. Davis of Tyler ruled that Apple did not infringe on the patents (based on insufficient evidentiary support), and overturned the jury verdict but did uphold the validity of Mirror World’s three patents

The court proceedings can be found here:

About IPR Plaza IPR Plaza is a web-based platform that bridges the gap between IP law, accounting, tax, transfer pricing and valuation by providing general and profession-specific information on intangibles, as well as, quantifiable valuation models. IPR Plaza is empowered by different leading IP advisory firms. IPR Plaza is headquartered in the Netherlands with representation in other major countries.