Upcoming public Apple hearings

Status
The first post of this thread is a WikiPost and can be edited by anyone with the appropiate permissions. Your edits will be public.

Cmaier

Elite Member
Staff Member
Vaccinated
Site Donor
Posts
2,654
Reaction score
3,464
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

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

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.
1/18 2:30PM - Apple v. Lancaster, Judge Chen

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

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

This hearing is a on a motion for reconsideration of the Court‘s judgment in favor of Apple.​
 
Last edited:

Cmaier

Elite Member
Staff Member
Vaccinated
Site Donor
Posts
2,654
Reaction score
3,464
It appears that this morning’s TraxCell hearing is no longer on the docket. I’m tuned in, for the moment, as Judge Chen does have his morning calendar with other cases, just in case it simply got de-listed in error.

The Cydia case is still on calendar for this afternoon.
 

Cmaier

Elite Member
Staff Member
Vaccinated
Site Donor
Posts
2,654
Reaction score
3,464
SaurikIT v. Apple

Just watched this hearing. As a reminder, this was about:

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)​

The Judge opened by saying she tends to agree with Apple that Apple has not taken any overt acts that would reset the statute of limitations. In other words, Apple set up its rules in 2008 or 2009, and hasn't changed anything substantive that would give rise to a new injury to the plaintiff in the last four years (apparently the statute of limitations).

Judge getting annoyed: "what was the specific overt act to your client"

Plaintiff: tying agreements

Judge: that doesn't affect your client. Your client (Lydia) has been sitting on the sidelines since 2008.

Plaintiff: cites something in the complaint and claims an overt act in 2020. Judge points out that the cited paragraphs do not say anything about 2020.

Anyway, after a half hour judge granted motion to dismiss, with leave to amend - in other words, Cydia can try to re-draft the complaint in the next two weeks to try and satisfy the judge that they have a plausible cause of action against Apple.

The whole hearing took about 45 minutes.
 

Cmaier

Elite Member
Staff Member
Vaccinated
Site Donor
Posts
2,654
Reaction score
3,464

Cmaier

Elite Member
Staff Member
Vaccinated
Site Donor
Posts
2,654
Reaction score
3,464
Today’s case of the day involves Google, not Apple. At 9am pacific, this link: https://cand-uscourts.zoomgov.com/j/1607141430?pwd=OEszVGhPbTcxbjRGZngveGhmRnV5UT09 (Note that this may not be the first case on the docket)

This case involves Google Assistant and privacy, and the hearing is on a motion to dismiss some counts of the complaint. I have not reviewed to see what the case is specifically about.

Sounds like they were alleging some sort of fraud due to a software bug, and the judge isn’t buying it.
 

Cmaier

Elite Member
Staff Member
Vaccinated
Site Donor
Posts
2,654
Reaction score
3,464
Looks like today’s Lancaster case is not on the docket, but next week’s is still a go.
 

Cmaier

Elite Member
Staff Member
Vaccinated
Site Donor
Posts
2,654
Reaction score
3,464
And Apple was just sued (twice) in the western district of texas by Ericsson. Probably standards essential telecom patents. I haven’t looked at the complaints.
 

Cmaier

Elite Member
Staff Member
Vaccinated
Site Donor
Posts
2,654
Reaction score
3,464
Updated the wiki with a couple new hearings.
 

Cmaier

Elite Member
Staff Member
Vaccinated
Site Donor
Posts
2,654
Reaction score
3,464
Not seeing Lancaster on today’s call sheet, but I’ll tune into Judge Chen’s docket this afternoon just in case. Was on the sheet for today as of yesterday, so who knows.
 
Top Bottom