Lenovo, Fujitsu, Dell, in Litigation over Memory Access Method

Case Summary:

Wilmington-based, non-practicing entity, Micro Design filed a complaint against computer technology companies including: Lenovo, Fujitsu, Dell, NEC and ASUSTeK. The suit concerned the companies’ infringement of a U.S. patent covering communications among processors, coprocessors and memory. The cases were filed on Jun 27, 2014 in Delaware District Court.

Patent-in-Suit:

The patent at issue is: US7437535 ‘Method and apparatus for issuing a command to store an instruction and load resultant data in a microcontroller,’ duly issued by USPTO on Oct 14, 2008 and expiring[i] by Apr 04, 2022. The patent has been through multiple assignees including: Net Navigation Systems and Clearwater Innovations. Micro Design is the current assignee[ii] of the patent (source: MaxVal’s Assignment Database.) The ‘535 patent describes a method of providing single-cycle instruction (store-and-load) that stores a command to a co-processor to automatically process data and that loads resultant processed data.

As in Complaint:

Lenovo infringed the patent by designing microprocessors that contain the claimed combinations of the patented technology, including the processor, co-processor and memory accessing features. The accused products include: ThinkStation C30, D30 and S30. The complaint stated that Lenovo’s actions aid and abet others (such as their partners and customers) to infringe using the accused products by advertising and distributing the accused products.

The complaints filed against other defendants were substantially similar.  Micro Design sought damages from all the defendants and demanded a jury trial.

See 1:14-cv-00840 for more details. To get alerts on cases filed/closed, subscribe to our Litigation Alerts.

Max-Insight enables you to access all of our patent tools such as Patent Term Estimator, Patent Family Tree, Has This Patent Been Litigated, etc. in one location. Max-Insight is available in 4 different subscriptions: Free, Bronze, Silver and Gold with varying usage levels. To learn more about Max-Insight, click here.

---

[i] Expected expiration date. Patent Term Estimator is a free web-based tool that automatically calculates patent terms and expiration dates for U.S. utility patents.

[ii] MaxVal offers Patent Assignment Alert service where subscribers receive email alerts when assignments relating to target applications, patents or entities of interest are recorded.

ArrivalStar S.A, Melvino Withdraw IP Suit against Lenovo

Case Filed: Nov 21, 2013

Case Closed: Mar 03, 2014

Court: Florida Southern District Court

Judge: Cecilia M. Altonaga

Case Summary:

ArrivalStar S.A. (based in Luxembourg) and Melvino Technologies (based in British Virgin Islands), non-practicing entities, filed patent infringement lawsuit against Lenovo asserting 3 issued U.S patents:

•   US6904359 entitled ‘Notification systems and methods with user-definable notifications based upon occurrence of events’, issued on Jun 07, 2005 and expired* on May 18, 2013
•       US6952645 entitled  ‘System and method for activation of an advance notification system for monitoring and reporting status of vehicle travel’ issued on Oct 04, 2005 and expiring* by May 06, 2017
•    US7400970 entitled ‘System and method for an advance notification system for monitoring and reporting proximity of a vehicle’ issued Jul 15, 2008 and expired* on May 18, 2013

The ‘359 and ‘970 patents were last assigned+ and the ‘645 patent is currently assigned+ to Melvino Technologies (source: MaxVal’s Assignment Database) and ArrivalStar S.A. is the exclusive licensee with sufficient standing to bring the underlying suit.

Melvino owns 30+ patents issued by the United States Patent & Trademark Office directed to a number of systems and methods relating to vehicle tracking and notification. 

In its complaint, plaintiffs alleged that Lenovo infringed claims of the ‘359, ‘645, and ‘970 patents through the use of tracking and notification technologies within its "Advance Ship Notice" and "Shipping Confirmation Email" services that are protected by the ‘359, ‘645 and ‘970 patents. It also added that Lenovo’s direct infringement injured plaintiffs and as compensation they wanted Court to enter monetary judgment to be entered in favor of plaintiffs against defendant.

On Mar 03, 2014, plaintiffs filed a notice of voluntary dismissal with prejudice, thereby ending litigation.

See 1:13-cv-24229 for more details. To get alerts on cases filed/closed, subscribe to our Litigation Alerts.

Max-Insight enables you to access all of our patent tools such as Patent Term Estimator, Patent Family Tree, Has This Patent Been Litigated, etc. in one location. Max-Insight is available in 4 different subscriptions: Free, Bronze, Silver and Gold with varying usage levels. To learn more about Max-Insight, click here.

---

* Expected expiration date. Patent Term Estimator is a free web-based tool that automatically calculates patent terms and expiration dates for U.S. utility patents. 

+ MaxVal offers Patent Assignment Alert service where subscribers receive email alerts when assignments relating to target applications, patents or entities of interest are recorded.

Lenovo settles with Patent Troll over User Interface Patent

Case Filed: Oct 27, 2012

Case Closed: May 16, 2013

Judge: Roy S. Payne

Court: Texas Eastern District Court

Case Summary:

A patent infringement case was filed by Hopewell Culture & Design against Lenovo for infringing their patent US7171625. The patent entitled Double-clicking a point-and-click user interface apparatus to enable a new interaction with content represented by an active visual display element was issued on Jan 30, 2007 and expires[i] by Jun 18, 2022. The patent is currently assigned[ii] to Todo Partners (source: MaxVal’s Assignment Database) and Hopewell is the exclusive licensee of the patent as per the complaint. 

Hopewell alleged that Lenovo infringes software allowing the user to double click or tap a visual element representing interactive content and interact with a second version of the interactive content. The accused products were ThinkPad Tablet and IdeaPad A1. 

The suit is concluded as the parties have reached a patent license and settlement agreement. Having considered the request made by Hopewell for a dismissal, the Court granted a dismissal and ordered that all the claims asserted in the suit to be dismissed without prejudice.  The costs are borne by the parties themselves. No information about the settlement is available at this point. 

See 2:12-cv-00693 for more details. To get alerts on cases filed/closed, subscribe to our Litigation Alerts.

Has this patent been litigated? Use our free tool or download our free Android/iOS app on Google Play/ App Store.

---

[i] Expected expiration date. Patent Term Estimator is a free web-based tool that automatically calculates patent terms and expiration dates for U.S. utility patents.

[ii] MaxVal offers Patent Assignment Alert service where subscribers receive email alerts when assignments relating to target applications, patents or entities of interest are recorded.

Apple wins over case filed by Optimum Power Solutions

In 2011, Optimum Power Solutions filed a complaint 3:11-cv-01509 against Apple, Dell, HP, Lenovo and Sony Electronics for their infringement of various claims of the U.S. Pat. No. 5,781,784 entitled ‘Dynamic power management of solid-state memories’ that issued on July 14, 1998. This post briefly summarizes the verdict rendered in this case on March 19, 2013.

The infringing products as said in complaint were Apple MacBook Pro, Dell Studio1555 Notebook, HP Pavillion dv3-2150us notebook, Lenovo ThinkPad T500 and Sony Vaio Z notebook. 

The case initially started with 5 defendants who were then reduced to 1 due to the dismissal of 4 defendants in September 2011 and the case proceeded to trial with Apple as sole defendant. In the final verdict, Optimum Power Solutions lost on all its claims as Judge, William H. Alsup, ordered non-infringement of the patent in favor of Apple and dismissal of the case without prejudice.

The ‘784 patent expired on Jul 2012, when the case was in hearing, and it appears that the plaintiff may not appeal the verdict. 

To get alerts on the cases filed and closed on the previous day, subscribe to our Litigation Alerts. 

Has this patent been litigated? Use our free tool or download our free Android app on Google Play.