Trademark Cancellation of "Apple Music" trademark application Jazz musician Charles Bertini filed an application to register his trademark "Apple Jazz" in Class 41 for entertainment services with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in June 2016. The USPTO refused his application due to Apple Inc.'s June 2015 application to register "
Apple Music", also in Class 41, citing a "likelihood of confusion" between the two trademarks. Consequently, Bertini filed an Opposition proceeding at the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) of the USPTO, challenging the right of Apple to register Apple Music over Apple Jazz. In April 2021, the TTAB dismissed Bertini's Opposition. The TTAB based its Decision on the "tacking" doctrine, which in limited circumstances allows an earlier trademark to be "tacked", or connected, to a later trademark giving the later trademark the priority date of the earlier trademark. It found that Apple Jazz has been in use for "live musical performances" since June 1985, and that Apple Music has been in use since June 2015. The TTAB also found that "the sound recordings identified in Applicant's [Apple's] registrations to be 'the same or similar' for purposes of tacking as the production and distribution of sound recordings identified in Applicant's application." In September 2021, Bertini appealed the TTAB's decision to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. In April 2023, the court issued a precedential decision reversing the decision of the administrative tribunal. The court stated "[w]e do not agree" with Apple's legal position regarding tacking. Referring to the TTAB's dismissal of Bertini's Opposition the court stated that "[n]o reasonable person could conclude, based on the record before us, that gramophone records and live musical performances are substantially identical." The result of the court's decision is that Apple Music may not be registered as a trademark in Class 41. Apple requested a rehearing of the appeal, but the request was denied by the court.
Apple Corps For nearly 30 years,
Apple Corps (
The Beatles-founded record label and holding company) and Apple Inc. (then Apple Computer) litigated a dispute involving the use of the name "Apple" as a
trademark and its association with music. In 1978, Apple Corps filed suit against Apple Computer for trademark infringement and the parties settled in 1981 with Apple Computer paying an undisclosed amount to Apple Corps, later revealed to be $80,000. A primary condition of the settlement was that Apple Computer agreed to stay out of the music business. In 1991, after Apple introduced the
Apple IIGS with an
Ensoniq music synthesizer chip, Apple Corps alleged the product to be in violation of the terms of their settlement. The parties then reached another settlement agreement and Apple paid Apple Corps around $26.5 million, with Apple agreeing it would not package, sell, or distribute physical music materials. In September 2003, Apple Corps again sued Apple Computer alleging Apple Computer had breached the settlement once more, this time for introducing
iTunes and the
iPod. Apple Corps alleged Apple Computer's introduction of the music-playing products with the
iTunes Music Store violated the terms of the previous agreement in which Apple agreed not to distribute music. The trial opened on March 29, 2006, in the UK. and ended on May 8, 2006, with the court issuing judgement in favor of Apple Computer. "[I] find no breach of the trademark agreement has been demonstrated", the presiding Justice Mann said. On February 5, 2007, Apple Inc. and Apple Corps announced another settlement of their trademark dispute, agreeing that Apple Inc. would own all of the trademarks related to 'Apple' and would license certain of those trademarks back to Apple Corps for its continued use. The settlement ended the ongoing trademark lawsuit between the companies, with each party bearing its own legal costs, and Apple Inc. continuing to use the Apple name and logos on iTunes. The settlement's full terms were confidential.
Swatch Group In April 2019, a Swiss court ruled against Apple's claim that the 'Tick Different' slogan employed by watchmaker
Swatch Group had infringed on Apple's
Think Different advertising campaign that ran from 1997 until 2002. Swatch contended that Apple's campaign was not well known enough in Switzerland to warrant protection and the Federal Administrative Court concluded that Apple had failed to produce sufficient documentation to support its claim.
Domain name disputes appleimac.com In an early
domain name dispute, two months before announcing the
iMac in July 1998, Apple sued then-teenager Abdul Traya. Having registered the domain name
appleimac.com in an attempt to draw attention to the web-hosting business he ran out of his parents' basement, a note on Traya's site stated that his plan was to "generate traffic to our servers and try to put the domain to sale. " After a legal dispute lasting for nearly a year, Apple settled out of court, paying Traya's legal fees and giving him a 'token payment' in exchange for the domain name.
itunes.co.uk The Apple-Cohen dispute was a
cybersquatting case where a top-level domain registrar's decision differed from prior decisions by awarding a domain name to a subsequent registrant (Apple), rather than to the prior registrant (Cohen). As the decision recounts, in November 2000,
Benjamin Cohen of CyberBritain registered the domain name
itunes.co.uk. The domain initially pointed to
skipmusic.com, and then to
cyberbritain.com, and was then inoperative for some time. Apple applied for a UK trademark for
iTunes in October 2000 which was granted in March 2001, and then launched its UK iTunes music store service in 2004. Afterward, Cohen reactivated his registered domain name, redirecting it to iTunes' then-rival,
Napster; later, Cohen forwarded the domain name to his CyberBritain's cash back/rewards website. The dispute was unresolved at the free
mediation stage and so Apple paid for an independent expert to decide the case; the expert decided the dispute in Apple's favor. Cohen stated he believed that the DRS system was unfair for a number of reasons and would seek redress against Nominet with the
High Court via
judicial review. The High Court at first instance rejected Cohen's case in August 2005, noting that Cohen's company, Cyberbritain Group Ltd., should have used the appeal process forming part of Nominet's domain resolution service. Afterward, Cohen's company asked for a rehearing and, as that case progressed, the interim domain name was transferred to Apple in accord with the expert's decision and thereafter pointed to the Apple music site. In November 2005, Cohen dropped all legal action against Apple.
Cisco Systems: iPhone mark In 2006,
Cisco Systems and Apple negotiated over allowing Apple rights to use Cisco's
Linksys iPhone trademark, but the negotiations stalled when Cisco pushed for the two products to be interoperable. Following the public unveiling of the
Apple iPhone at the 2007
Macworld Expo, Cisco filed a lawsuit against Apple in January 2007, alleging Apple's iPhone name infringed on Cisco's iPhone trademark. Cisco alleged that Apple created a front company subsequent to their negotiations to try to acquire the rights another way, while Apple countered that there would be no
likelihood of confusion between the two products, because Apple's iPhone product was the first cell phone with such a name, while Cisco's iPhone was a
VoIP phone. Bloomberg reported Cisco's iPhone as a product marketed for less than $100 and part of the
Linksys home
routers, enabling internet-based calls through
Skype and
Yahoo! Messenger, and contrasted it with Apple's iPhone as a
mobile phone which sold for around $600. In February 2007, Cisco and Apple announced an agreement under which both companies would be allowed to use the iPhone name worldwide.
Sector Labs: use of Pod In March 2007, Apple
opposed a trademark application by
startup Sector Labs, which sought to register "Video Pod" as a mark identifying goods associated with a video projector product. Apple argued that the proposed mark was merely "descriptive" and should be denied because the registration would cause a likelihood of confusion with Apple's pre-existing "iPod" marks. In March 2012, the U.S.
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) ruled in Apple's favor and denied Sector Labs' registration, finding that the "iPod" mark was "famous" and therefore entitled to broad protection under U.S. trademark law.
New York City "GreeNYC" logo In January 2008, Apple filed an opposition with the
U.S. Trademark Trial and Appeal Board against
New York City's (NYC) trademark application for the "
Big Apple" logo for NYC's
GreeNYC initiative, by designer Blake E. Marquis. NYC originally filed for its trademark: "a stylized apple design" for "[e]ducation services, namely, providing public service announcements on policies and practices of the City of New York in the field of environmentally sustainable growth" in May 2007, with an amendment filed in June 2007. The TTAB's Notice of Publication was published in September 2007 and Apple filed an opposition with the TTAB the following January, claiming a likelihood of confusion. In June 2008, NYC filed a motion to amend its application to delete the leaf element from its design, leaving the stem, and the TTAB dismissed Apple's opposition and
counterclaims in accordance with the parties'
stipulation in July 2008. In November 2011, the TTAB issued NYC's trademark registration.
Victoria School of Business and Technology In September 2008, Apple sent a cease and desist letter to the Victoria School of Business and Technology in
Saanich, British Columbia, claiming the school's logo infringed Apple's trademark rights and that the school's logo falsely suggested Apple had authorized the school's activities. The logo in question featured the outline of an apple and a leaf, although the design incorporated a mountain, had three bumps on top of the apple instead of the two used by Apple, and had no bite out of the apple, unlike Apple's logo. In April 2011, the school reported it had settled its 3-year dispute with Apple, was launching a new logo under a new name, Q College, and was expanding its operations. The settlement's full terms were undisclosed.
Woolworths Limited logo In October 2009, Apple disputed a trademark application by
Woolworths Limited in
Australia over the new logo for its supermarket chain
Woolworths Supermarkets, a stylised "W", similar in shape to an apple. Apple reportedly took objection to the breadth of Woolworths' application, which would allow it to brand products, including consumer electronics, with the logo. In April 2011, Woolworths amended its trademark application to remove various goods and services, such as "apparatus for recording, transmission or reproduction of sound or images" and Apple withdrew its opposition, allowing the trademark to proceed to registration. In August 2011 Woolworths introduced a shopping app for the iPhone, and, as of January 2019 continues to use the logo, including on the face of its iPhone app. The Woolworths smartphone app is also available on Apple's
App Store where the logo is featured prominently; Apple closely manages its App Store offerings.
Apple v. DOPi: lower-case i use In March 2010, an Australian Trademarks tribunal denied Apple's attempt to prevent a small company from trademarking the name DOPi for use on its laptop bags and cases for Apple products. Apple argued that the DOPi name – which is iPod spelled backwards – is too similar to its own product's name, the iPod. Proview Technology sued Apple over the rights to the mark in China in 2011; Apple counter-sued but lost and then appealed, with the case before the
Xicheng district court, where Proview claimed US$1.6 billion in damages. Apple paid Proview approximately $53,000–55,000 for the mark in 2009. alleging several permutations of
fraud (intentional misrepresentation, concealment, inducement) and unfair competition. Apple paid $60 million to Proview to end the dispute in a court-mediated settlement in the Higher People's Court of
Guangdong province; the U.S. case was thrown out of court.
Amazon "App Store" In 2011, Apple filed suit against
Amazon.com alleging trademark infringement, unfair competition,
dilution, and false advertising under the
Lanham Act and related California state law over Amazon's use of the "App Store" phrase relating to Amazon's "
Amazon Appstore Developer Portal" and Amazon's alleged other similar uses of the phrase. In its complaint, Apple did not refer to "apps" as a common name, but described its applications store as a place consumers license "software programs or products"; Amazon countered in its answer that "app store" is a common phrase meaning a "place to buy apps".
Reuters reported that
Microsoft was opposing Apple's attempted registration of the phrase as a trademark and that part of the matter was before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB). Apple motioned the court for a
preliminary injunction to bar Amazon from using the "App Store" name but, in July 2011, U.S. District Judge
Phyllis Hamilton, presiding over Apple's case against Amazon, denied Apple's motion. In July 2012, the case was still in the discovery stage of litigation. In January 2013, Apple's false advertising claim was rejected by a US District judge, who argued that the company presented no evidence that Amazon had "[attempted] to mimic Apple's site or advertising", or communicated that its service "possesses the characteristics and qualities that the public has come to expect from the Apple APP STORE and/or Apple products". In July 2013, Apple dropped the lawsuit.
Trade secrets Apple v. Does Ultimately decided under the title ''O'Grady v. Superior Court
, the suit filed by Apple against unnamed bloggers raised the issue for the first time of whether bloggers hold the same protections against revealing sources that journalists have. In November 2004, three popular weblog sites featuring Apple rumors publicly revealed information about two unreleased Apple products, the Mac mini and an as yet unreleased product code-named Asteroid
, also known as Project Q97
. Apple subpoenaed three sites to force them to identify their confidential sources: Apple Insider, Power Page'', and, separately,
Think Secret, which did no original reporting on the case and thus had no sources to reveal. In February 2005, a trial court in California decided that website operators do not have the same
shield law protection as do other journalists. The journalists appealed and, in May 2006, the
California Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's decision, ruling that activities in question were covered by the shield law.
Apple v. Think Secret In
Apple Computer v. DePlume, a case illustrating one of Apple's methods of protecting its claims in
trade secrets, Apple sued
Think Secret's parent company, the dePlume Organization LLC, and Think Secret's editor in January 2005, alleging misappropriation of trade secrets with regard to Think Secret's stories on a "headless iMac" and new version of
iWork. In response, DePlume filed a motion to dismiss the case based on
First Amendment grounds under California's state
anti-SLAPP statute, a law designed to dispense with meritless legal claims attempting to silence valid exercises of freedom of speech. In late 2007, Think Secret announced "Apple and Think Secret have settled their lawsuit, reaching an agreement that results in a positive solution for both sides. As part of the confidential settlement, no sources were revealed and Think Secret will no longer be published".
Copyright Apple v. Franklin Apple v. Franklin established the fundamental basis of copyright of computer software, even if it was provided only as object code or in
firmware. In 1982, Apple filed a lawsuit against
Franklin Computer Corp., alleging that Franklin's ACE 100 personal computer used illegal copies of the
Apple II's
operating system and
ROM. The case was decided in Franklin's favor but reversed by the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Object code cases and conflicts of law Apple's litigation over
object code contributed to the development of contemporary copyright law because the company's object code cases brought different results in different courts, creating a
conflict of laws that resulted in international litigation. In the 1980s, Apple litigated two copyright cases with central issues that included the question of whether object code (as contrasted with
source code) of a computer program is subject to copyright laws. A third case in which Apple was not a party but that involved the Apple decisions followed in New Zealand. The specific cases were
Computer Edge Pty. Ltd. v. Apple Computer Inc. (1986, Australia) ("
Computer Edge"),
Apple Computer Inc. v Mackintosh Computers Ltd. (Canada, 1987) ("
Apple v. Mackintosh"), and
IBM v. Computer Imports Ltd. ("
IBM v. Computer Imports") (New Zealand, 1989). In the
Computer Edge case, the Australian court decided against the then-prevailing opinions in other courts (the U.K., Canada, South Africa, and the U.S.) and ruled object code was not copyrightable, while the
Supreme Court of Canada in
Apple v. Mackintosh reversed its earlier decisions and ruled that because object code was a translation of source code and embodied in a silicon chip, it was therefore a translation of an original literary work expressed in a material form and unauthorized reproduction of the object code was therefore an infringement of copyright. The Canadian court opined that programs within
ROM silicon chips are protected under the
Copyright Act of Canada and the conversion from the source code into object code is a form of
translation. It further held that such translation does not include the expression of an idea in another form (which would not constitute an infringement), but rather only applies to the expression of an idea in another language, and that a translation has a one-to-one correspondence between works that are expressed in two different languages. In these conflict of laws cases, Apple met with conflicting international judicial opinions: an Australian court decision conflicted with a Canadian court decision on the copyrightability of object code. In
IBM v. Computer Imports, the
High Court of New Zealand then considered these prior decisions and sided with the Canadian decision in ruling that, although object code is not an original literary work in its own right, it is a reproduction of source code in material form and therefore an infringement of copyright takes place if it is copied without the authorization of the copyright owner. These revisions of law in favor of making object code subject to copyright law are still controversial. The revisions also form the technical underpinnings (via the
Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) and the
Electronic Communications Privacy Act) for the legal notions of electronic privacy violation and computer trespass, as well as the further development of anti-hacking law-making such as the
Patriot Act and the
Budapest Convention on Cybercrime.
Apple v. Microsoft and Hewlett-Packard In 1988, after the introduction of Microsoft's
Windows 2.0, Apple filed a lawsuit against Microsoft and
Hewlett-Packard alleging that
Microsoft Windows and HP's
NewWave violated Apple's copyrights in the
Macintosh user interface. Cited, among other things, was the use of overlapping and resizable windows in Windows 2.0. The case was one of the "
look and feel" copyright lawsuits of the 1980s. After several years in court, Apple's claims against Microsoft were dismissed, primarily due to a license
John Sculley had negotiated with
Bill Gates for Windows 1.0. The decision was upheld on appeal in 1994, but legal disputes on this topic were still ongoing until 1997, when the two companies came to a wide-ranging agreement that included Microsoft buying non-voting Apple stocks.
Xerox v. Apple Computer Xerox Corp. v. Apple Computer was a 1989 case where Xerox sued Apple over its
graphical user interface (GUI) copyrights. A federal district court dismissed Xerox's claims without addressing whether Apple's GUI infringed Xerox's.
OdioWorks v. Apple The
OdioWorks case was one of the first high-profile cases illustrating Apple's attempts to employ federal police power in its litigation practices by invoking the anti-circumvention provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) as a means of shielding its intellectual property from
reverse engineering. In November 2008, Apple sent a cease-and-desist letter to BluWiki, a non-commercial
wiki provider, alleging BluWiki infringed Apple's copyrights in publishing a discussion of how to make the latest iPods interoperate with other software and that, by so doing, violated the DMCA. In April 2009, OdioWorks, the operators of BluWiki, backed by the
Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), defensively sued Apple seeking a declaration of non-infringement and non-circumvention. In July 2009, Apple ceased claiming infringement, stating it was "withdrawing [Apple's] takedown notifications" and that "Apple no longer has, nor will it have in the future, any objection to the publication of the itunesDB Pages which are the subject of the OdioWorks complaint". After Apple withdrew its complaint and cited code obsolescence as a contributing factor in its decision to withdraw, BluWiki then republished its discussion of the issue. The EFF noted, "While we are glad that Apple retracted its baseless legal threats, we are disappointed that it only came after 7 months of censorship and a lawsuit".
Apple v. Corellium In 2019, Apple sued Corellium for copyright and DMCA violations related to Corellium's software tools for creating
virtualized iPhones. The product enabled testing iOS software on computers, enabling some kinds of security research that would be harder to do on actual iPhones. He also determined that Corellium used a vetting process for its customers. but lost the appeal in May 2023. The two companies reached a full settlement in December 2023. The document prepared by Apple with the goal of using it in the company's copyright lawsuit against Corellium revealed that the cybersecurity startup offered or sold its tools to controversial government spyware and hacking-tool makers in
Israel, the
United Arab Emirates, and
Russia, and a cybersecurity firm with potential ties to the Chinese government. The leaked documents also revealed that in 2019, Corellium offered a trial of its product to
NSO Group, whose customers have for years been caught using its
Pegasus spyware against dissidents, journalists, and human rights defenders.
Trade dress GEM "look and feel" suit 1.1 desktop was a copy of that of the Mac GUI. Prevailing in an early
copyright infringement suit in the mid-1980s, Apple forced
Digital Research to alter basic components in Digital Research's
Graphics Environment Manager ("GEM"), almost a direct copy of the Macintosh's graphical user interface (GUI), or "look and feel". Features Digital Research removed from GEM as a result of the lawsuit included
disk drive icons on the desktop, movable and resizable windows in the file manager, shading in the title bars, and window open/close animations. In addition, visual elements including the
scrollbar thumbs and the window close button were changed to be less similar to those in the Mac GUI. The eOne was taken off the market, resulting in eMachines' losing the ability to sell the eOne as intended. In eMachines'
EDGAR statement for May 1, 2001, eMachines stated that its "net loss for the first quarter of 2001 was $31.1 million, or $0.21 per share, compared to a loss of $11.9 million, or $0.13 per share, in the first quarter of 2000", and that these results "reflect the substantial discounts and incentives that we gave to retailers to enable liquidation of product inventories".
Patent Creative Technology v. Apple, Inc. (menu structure) In a dispute illustrating the nature of claims, defenses, and counterclaims for
patent infringement based on arguments of
prior art and
first to file, rival digital music player maker
Creative Technology sued Apple in May 2006 for Apple's alleged infringement of Creative's
Zen patent claiming Apple infringed Creative's patent for the menuing structures on an
MP3 player. Creative claimed it began using its menuing method on its
Nomad players in September 2000, approximately a year prior to Apple's first iPod release in October 2001. Creative, a Singapore-based consumer electronics group, also filed a trade complaint with the
United States International Trade Commission (ITC) against Apple. Creative asked for a court
injunction to block the import and sale of Apple's iPod and
iPod nano in the United States and for money damages for past sales. Apple filed a countersuit against Creative on similar grounds. In August 2006, Apple and Creative settled the suit with Apple agreeing to pay Creative $100 million USD for the right to implement Creative's method of sorting songs on the iPod. The settlement effectively ended the patent dispute and five other pending lawsuits between the two companies. Creative also secured an agreement to participate in the "Made for iPod" program by producing accessories for the iPod.
Typhoon Touch Technologies (touch screen) In June 2008, Apple was named among others as a defendant in a suit brought by plaintiff Typhoon Touch Technologies in the federal
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas alleging patent infringement in portable
touch screen technology. The suit illustrated the vagaries of litigating patent licensing and
royalty collection issues in the commercial exploitation of intellectual property rights. Ultimately, Typhoon could not prevail against patent defense arguments of prior art and
obviousness and earned itself a reputation as a
patent troll. Typhoon acquired two pre-existing patents, (filed in 1993 and 1994 and issued in 1995 and 1997) in mid-2007 for $350,000 plus a percentage of collected licensing fees. The patents had languished for some time and were not being policed; shortly after Typhoon acquired the patents, it began enforcement by bringing suit against exploiters of the technology who had not paid licensing fees. Typhoon was successful in its patent infringement suits against some small companies, and then expanded its litigation to go after larger ones. Typhoon alleged that Apple and others used its patented technology inventions without permission. Typhoon originally filed the suit in December 2007 against
Dell after settling with some smaller companies but, in mid-2008, amended its complaint to add Apple,
Fujitsu,
Toshiba,
Lenovo,
Panasonic,
HTC,
Palm,
Samsung,
Nokia, and
LG. In 2010, Apple settled with Typhoon for an undisclosed sum and was then dismissed from the litigation as of September 2010. The other large companies were able to rebuff Typhoon's claims, and Typhoon ceased doing business in 2008 after the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) suspended its trading in a fraud investigation.
Nokia v. Apple (wireless, iPhone) In October 2009, Nokia Corporation sued Apple for Apple's infringement of Nokia's patents relating to wireless technology; Apple countersued Nokia in December 2009. The two companies engaged in nearly two-years of litigation and both parties amended their claims multiple times and in multiple courts before finally settling in June 2011. For an undisclosed amount of cash and future ongoing iPhone royalties to be paid by Apple, Nokia agreed to settle, with Apple's royalty payments retroactively back-payable to the iPhone's introduction in 2007, but with no broad cross-licensing agreement made between the companies. Apple only agreed to cross-license some patents to Nokia. "Apple said in a statement today that Nokia will have a license to some technology, "but not the majority of the innovations that make the iPhone unique". Apple gets a license to some of Nokia's patents, including ones that were deemed essential to industry standards on mobile phones.
Apple v. HTC Apple filed a patent infringement suit against
High Tech Computer Corp. (HTC) in March 2010 in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware in the two companies' ongoing battle with each other, and a complaint against HTC under Section 337 of the
Tariff Act of 1930 with the
U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) in Washington, D.C. Apple's suit alleged 20 separate patent infringements relating to the iPhone's user interface, underlying architecture and hardware. Steve Jobs exclaimed "We can sit by and watch competitors steal our patented inventions, or we can do something about it. We've decided to do something about it ... [We] think competition is healthy, but competitors should create their own original technology, not steal ours". The ITC rejected all but one of Apple's claims, however, ruling for Apple on a single claim relating to data tapping. HTC motioned the Delaware court for a
change of venue to the Northern District of California, arguing against Apple's desire to consolidate the case with the similar cases brought by Nokia against Apple, alleging insubstantial overlap between those cases and Apple's complaint, but Judge
Gregory M. Sleet denied HTC's motion for a venue change, ruling that Apple's choice of forum would prevail. also filing a counter-complaint with the ITC, with HTC's general counsel saying "HTC will continue to protect its patented inventions against infringement from Apple until such infringement stops." In May 2012 the Delaware court ordered mediation between the companies. In November 2012, HTC and Apple ended the patent dispute by settling the case, but did not disclose the terms of the settlement. The companies reported the settlement included a 10-year agreement for licensing both companies' current and future patents to each other.
Kodak v. Apple (digital imaging) Eastman Kodak sued Apple and
Research In Motion (RIM) in January 2010, filing two lawsuits against Apple and a complaint with the U.S. International Trade Commission against both Apple and RIM after the companies refused to pay royalties for use of Kodak's patents for digital cameras. Kodak alleged Apple's and RIM's phones infringed on patented Kodak
digital imaging technology. Kodak sought an injunction against further imports into the United States of Apple's iPhone and RIM's
BlackBerry. After Kodak filed an additional suit in January 2012 against Apple and another against HTC claiming infringement of four of its key patents, Apple filed a countersuit with the
U.S. Bankruptcy Court to block Kodak's efforts to use the disputed patents as collateral for loans. In the January complaint Kodak claimed violations of the same image preview technology at issue in the original dispute between Kodak, Apple, and RIM that is, as of 2012, pending before ITC. In March 2012, bankruptcy court judge
Allen Gropper, overseeing Kodak's restructuring, denied Apple's request to file a patent complaint with the ITC over some of Kodak's cameras, photo frames, and printers. In July 2012, the
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that Kodak did not infringe on Apple's patent technology for digital cameras, although a few days earlier Kodak lost its case before the ITC against Apple and RIM; Kodak announced it would appeal that decision.
Motorola Mobility v. Apple In the year before Apple and Samsung began suing each other on most continents, and while Apple and HTC were already embroiled in a patent fight,
Motorola Mobility and Apple started a period of intense patent litigation. The Motorola-Apple patent imbroglio commenced with claims and cross-claims between the companies for patent infringement and encompassed multiple forums in multiple countries as each party sought friendly venues for litigating its respective claims; the fight also included
administrative law rulings as well as ITC and
European Commission involvement. As of April 2012, the controversy centered on whether a
FRAND license to a components manufacturer carries over to an equipment manufacturer incorporating the component into equipment, an issue not addressed in the U.S. Supreme Court's default
exhaustion doctrine in
Quanta v. LG Electronics. In June 2012, appellate Judge
Richard Posner ordered dismissal of the case
with prejudice and Apple announced its intention to appeal a month later.
VirnetX patent infringement lawsuits Since 2010, at least three different cases have been filed against Apple by
VirnetX related to patent infringement on at least thirteen of their patents in Apple's
FaceTime and VPN On Demand technology in the iOS system. The first case, involving four of VirnetX's patents, was found in favor of VirnetX, and while Apple was able to content one of the patents with the Patent Office, the other three stood up to scrutiny. Apple further appealed up to the Supreme Court, but the Supreme Court refused to hear the case in February 2020, leaving in place a verdict against it. Other cases cover redesigns versions of FaceTime that VirnetX claim still violate their patents.
Apple v. Samsung: Android phones and tablets Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. was the first of many lawsuits between Apple and Samsung. In the spring of 2011, Apple sued Samsung while already fully engaged in a
patent war with Motorola. Apple's multinational litigation over technology patents became known as the
smartphone patent wars. Extensive litigation followed fierce competition in the global market for consumer mobile communications. By August 2011, Apple and Samsung were engaged in 19 ongoing lawsuits in 12 courts in nine countries on four continents; by October, the fight expanded to 10 countries, and by July 2012, the two companies were embroiled in more than 50 lawsuits around the globe with billions of dollars in damages claimed between them. As of August 2013, the ultimate cost of these patent wars to consumers, shareholders, and investors is not known. Named as a third party in the suit, Google claims that this is another tactic by Apple to defeat
Android, citing Apple's asking a judge to force Google to hand over documents containing Android's source code.
Google has accused Apple (alongside Oracle, Microsoft, and others) of trying to take down
Android through patent litigation, rather than innovating and competing with better products and services. A U.S. jury trial was held on July 30, 2012, with Apple prevailing and Samsung ordered to pay more than $1 billion in damages, after which Samsung stated: "This is not the final word in this case or in battles being waged in courts and tribunals around the world, some of which have already rejected many of Apple's claims." Judge
Lucy H. Koh later decided that the jury had miscalculated $450 million in its initial damage assessment and ordered a retrial that commenced in November 2013. On August 9, 2013, the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) announced its decision regarding an Apple-initiated case, whereby Samsung was accused of infringing four Apple patents related to user interfaces and headphone input functionality. The USITC sided with Apple in what was described in the media as a "mixed ruling" and stated that some of Samsung's older devices infringe on two of Apple's patents—one covering touch-screen technology and another regarding headphone jacks; however, no violations were identified in four other patents. The final determination of the ITC was signed by Lisa Barton, Acting Secretary to the Commission. In a damage-only retrial court session on November 13, 2013, as ordered by Judge Koh in December 2012, a Samsung Electronics representative stated in a San Jose, U.S. courtroom that Apple's hometown jury found that the company copied some features of both the iPhone and iPad. Samsung's attorney clarified the purpose of the damage-only retrial and stated the result of the first trial, "This is a case not where we're disputing that the 13 phones contain some elements of Apple's property", but the company has disputed the $379.8 million amount that Apple claimed – Samsung presented a figure of $52 million. The San Jose jury eventually awarded Apple $290 million in damages after jurors completed a one-page assessment form for each infringed patent. The six-woman, two-man jury reached its decision after a three-day period. In the first week of January 2014, a filing with the U.S. District court in San Jose showed that legal executives from both parties agreed to meet prior to February 19, 2014, to engage in settlement discussions. Both Samsung and Apple were responding to a court order that instructed the completion of such a meeting before a new trial begins in March 2014. One of three Samsung chiefs met with Cook, but the filing did not reveal the name of the representative. A new trial is scheduled for March 2014, in which Apple will seek to prevent Samsung from selling some of its current devices in the U.S. The case will involve further debate over monetary compensation. Samsung stands to gain $6 million if the jury rules in its favor, while Apple is seeking $2 billion in damages and could proceed with similar lawsuits against other Android handset makers, as the relevant patent issues extend beyond Samsung's software technology.
Corephotonics v. Apple On 6 November 2017,
Israeli
start-up Corephotonics sued Apple. They claimed that the technology behind the dual-camera systems in Apple's
iPhone 7 Plus and
8 Plus infringed four patents owned by them (Corephotonics). Corephotonics said that they approached Apple over a possible partnership, but Apple's lead negotiator apparently declined the idea, with Apple going ahead and launching the iPhone 7 Plus in late 2016, and then the 8 Plus in late 2017. The patents claimed by Corephotonics to be infringed are: two patents on mini telephoto lens assembly, one patent on dual aperture zoom digital cameras, and one on high resolution thin multi-aperture imaging systems. Corephotonics also blamed Apple's consumers (who bought the 7 Plus or 8 Plus) to be infringing the patents, as they claim that Apple sells the products with "knowledge of or willful blindness", which the consumers buy. The lawsuit demands monetary compensation for the lawyers the start-up had to hire, as well as for damages. They are also asking Apple to immediately stop producing dual-lens cameras systems. The
iPhone X is not included in the lawsuit, despite having a dual-lens camera.
Licensing Norwegian Consumer Council In June 2006, the Consumer
Ombudsmen in
Norway,
Sweden and
Denmark challenged Apple's iTunes
end user license agreement (EULA) through the Norwegian Consumer Ombudsman Bjørn Erik Thon, who claimed that Apple was violating contract and copyright laws in their countries. Thon stated that Apple's "being an international company does not entitle [it] to disregard the laws of the countries in which it operates. The company's standard customer contract violates Norwegian law". An official complaint was filed by the
Norwegian Consumer Council in January 2006, after which German and French consumer groups joined the Nordic-led drive to force Apple to make its iTunes online store compatible with digital music players made by rival companies. A French law allows regulators to force Apple to make its player and store compatible with rival offerings. but the matter was only resolved after Apple discontinued its
FairPlay digital rights management (DRM) scheme.
Office of Fair Trading investigation In 2008, the UK
National Consumer Council (NCC, now Consumer Focus) called on the UK's
Office of Fair Trading (OFT) to investigate Apple's EULA, claiming Apple's EULA, and those of multiple other technology companies, misled consumers and infringed legal rights. The NCC's product complaint included Apple's
iLife as well as Microsoft's
Office for Mac, and products by
Corel,
Adobe,
Symantec,
Kaspersky,
McAfee, and others. The OFT determined the licensing agreements were unfair and Apple agreed to improve its terms and conditions to make them clearer and fairer to consumers.
Apple Inc. v. Psystar Corporation In July 2008, Apple Inc. filed suit against
Psystar Corporation alleging Psystar sold
Intel-based systems with
Mac OS X pre-installed and that, in so doing, violated Apple's copyright and trademark rights and the
software licensing terms of Apple's
shrink wrap license. That license restricted the use of Mac OS X to Apple computers, and specifically prohibited customers from installing the operating system on non-Apple computers. The case brought the anti-circumvention and anti-trafficking facets of the
DMCA into this licensing dispute, with Apple ultimately prevailing and awarded permanent injunctive relief, and the decision affirmed on appeal in 2011. Psystar's appeal asserted copyright misuse as a defense by arguing that Apple's license agreement was an unlawful attempt to extend copyright protection to products that are not copyrightable. The appeals court ruled that Psystar failed to demonstrate "copyright misuse" by Apple because Psystar must show either that the license agreement restricts creativity or that it restricts competition, and that Apple's
license agreement does neither. ==Corporate espionage and data theft==