One day after winning $532M award, Smartflash hits Apple with uninformed obvious suit

No Comment 0 View

The following day after wining a $532,900,000 jury endowment opposite Apple, Smartflash filed a uninformed a lawsuit opposite a tech hulk for obvious infringement.

On Tuesday, Feb. 24, a Texas jury found Apple had infringed on 3 of a Tyler company’s patents in a box filed May 29, 2013, in a U.S. District Court for Eastern Texas, Tyler Division.

On Wednesday Smartflash filed a second censure for obvious infringement, alleging violations of a same patents a jury found Apple had infringed.

In a strange complaint, Smartflash indicted Apple of infringing on several patents for information storage and handling entrance to a information around remuneration information, including:

– U.S. Patent No. 7,334,720 released Feb. 26, 2008;

– U.S. Patent No. 7,942,317 released May 17, 2011;

– U.S. Patent No. 8,033,458 released Oct. 11, 2011;

– U.S. Patent No. 8,061,598 released Nov. 22, 2011;

– U.S. Patent No. 8,118,221 released Feb. 21, 2012; and

– U.S. Patent No. 8,336,772 released Dec. 25, 2012.

At trial, a jury found Apple’s transgression of a ‘720, ‘221 and ‘772 patents was bullheaded and that a suspect unsuccessful to infer a patents were invalid.

The new fit also alleges violations of a ‘720, ‘221 and ‘772 patents, that describe to program used in Apple’s iTunes Store.

“Apple has tangible believe of a patents-in-suit during slightest from a filing of Smartflash’s filing strange complaint,” a fit states.

“Apple was wakeful of a patents-in-suit and knew that a others’ actions, if taken, would consecrate transgression of those patents during slightest since a jury has already found that Apple infringes.”

Smartflash is seeking to request Apple from infringing on a patents.

In a eventuality a permanent claim preventing destiny acts of transgression is not granted, Smartflash asks it be awarded a mandatory ongoing chartering fee.

Smartflash is represented by Bradley W. Caldwell, Jason D. Cassady, John Austin Curry, Daniel R. Pearson and Hamad M. Hamad of Caldwell Cassady Curry P.C. in Dallas; and T. John Ward and T. John Ward Jr. of Ward Smith Law Firm in Longview.

Case No. 6:15-cv-00145

In : Tech

About the author

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked (required)



Mojo Marketplace