- Joined
- Sep 26, 2021
- Posts
- 5,968
- Main Camera
- Sony
Times are Pacific. Links are to Judges’ zoom meeting information. The public may attend via zoom; you will not appear on camera.
1/5 9AM - Apple v. Traxcell, Judge Chen
www.cand.uscourts.gov
Apple sued for declaratory judgment that it does not infringe U.S. patent no. 10,820,147. (Abstract: “A mobile device, wireless network and their method of operation provide both on-line (connected) navigation operation, as well as off-line navigation from a local database within the mobile device. Routing according to the navigation system can be controlled by traffic congestion measurements made by the wireless network that allow the navigation system to select the optimum route based on expected trip duration.”)Traxcell sued Apple on this patent in W.D. Tex, but that case was dismissed on Dec. 16, 2021.Traxcell has moved to dismiss the declaratory judgment action (or to transfer it to Texas) on the basis of the “first to file” rule. The Judge has asked for briefing as to whether that motion is moot in light of the Texas court dismissing the action in Texas.
1/5 2:30PM - SaurikIT V. Apple, Judge Gonzalez-Rogers
This is Cydia, claiming that Apple “monopolizes the IOS App Distribution and IOS App Payment Processing Markets.” The legal theories are based on the Sherman Act and California Unfair Competition laws.Apple has filed a motion to dismiss, which is the topic for the hearing.Apple argues that the statute of limitations has run, so Cydia is not entitled to any damages. Apple also argues that Cydia is not entitled to equitable relief (e.g. an injunction), because of the doctrine of laches, which is an equitable defense that prevents a plaintiff who “with full knowledge of the facts, acquiesces in a transaction and sleeps upon [its] rights.” Sanjay LLC v. Sony Corp., 263 F.3D 942, 950-51 (9th Cir. 2001)1/11 2:30PM - Apple v. Lancaster, Judge Chen
www.cand.uscourts.gov
This is an initial case management conference, so it should not be too interesting.This is a trade secrets misappropriation and contract breach lawsuit. Lancaster was a former employee at Apple, who Apple alleges leaked trade secrets to a “Correspondent” at an outside media entity, which then published the alleged trade secrets. Apple alleges, “[f]or example, Lancaster proposed that the Correspondent provide favorable coverage of a startup company in which Lancaster was an investor as a quid pro quo. Lancaster even recruited the Correspondent to serve as his personal investigator.”Lancaster essentially denies the allegations, other than to admit that he communicated with the reporter via direct messenger applications during late 2018 and 2019.There is a pending criminal case against Lancaster.
www.cand.uscourts.gov
www.cand.uscourts.gov
www.cand.uscourts.gov
Chen, Edward M. [EMC] | United States District Court, Northern District of California
www.cand.uscourts.gov
Chen, Edward M. [EMC] | United States District Court, Northern District of California
www.cand.uscourts.gov
1/18 2:30PM - Apple v. Lancaster, Judge Chen
Chen, Edward M. [EMC] | United States District Court, Northern District of California
www.cand.uscourts.gov
This is the same matter as above, but this time the court will hear arguments relating to Lancaster’s motion to stay the case pending resolution of the related criminal case.
1/19 2:00PM - SA Music, LLC v. Apple, Judge Orrick
This is a copyright infringement case About music by Harold Arlen, Ray Henderson, and Harry Warren. Songs like “At Last,” “Chattanooga Choo Choo,” “Over the Rainbow,” etc. Apparently the songs are available on iTunes from a record company who allegedly doesn’t have rights to them.
The hearing is on Apple’s motion for partially summary judgment in its favor. Specifically, Apple is arguing it cannot be held liable for willful infringement (a category of infringement that has bigger penalties), because it had no actual knowledge of any infringement, nor was it reckless with regard to infringement.
Apple also argues that one theory of infringement - that it made recordings available for sale - is not actually copyright infringement.
Apple also argues that there is no evidence it ever provided promotional streams of the songs (which would be be copyright infringement).
1/21 1:30PM - Tabak v. Apple, Judge Tiger
Tigar, Jon S. [JST] | United States District Court, Northern District of California
www.cand.uscourts.gov
This is a class action lawsuit relating to an alleged “audio IC defects” in iphone 7 and 7 plus.
This is a “further case management conference.” Such conferences are occasionally interesting, depending on what the Judge wants to talk about.
1/27 10:00AM - Cub Club Investment, LLC v. Apple, Judge Chabra
This is a complaint for copyright infringement. Apparently plaintiff thinks you can copyright 5 skin tone emoji.
The hearing is on Apple’s motion to dismiss the case. Apple argues that copyright does not protect the idea of applying skin tones to emoji, and does not protect human features or color variations. Apple also argues that the complaint fails to identify what, exactly, trade dress Cub Club had that Apple infringed, and that inserting emoji into messages is not something that can qualify for trade dress protection.
2/10 1:30PM - Coronavirus Reporter v. Apple, Judge Chen
Chen, Edward M. [EMC] | United States District Court, Northern District of California
www.cand.uscourts.gov
Nice write-up here: https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archiv...ts-app-store-coronavirus-reporter-v-apple.htm
This hearing is a on a motion for reconsideration of the Court‘s judgment in favor of Apple.
Last edited:
