Battery Health on iOS 11.3

Apple is sued for batteries of iPhones and essential patents; company counters in other cases

Another race week for the legal department from Apple: in the past few days, Apple has been involved in two new lawsuits, but has also decided to refute two other cases that had been going on for some time.

Shall we take a look at everything?

IPhones batteries

The first of the lawsuits suffered by the company is nothing new: this is yet another collective action due to the controversy of the iPhones’ batteries – yes, the scandal of two years ago, when the Apple was caught on the heels, silently reducing the performance of their smartphones to preserve their battery, still reverberates.

Battery Health on iOS 11.3

This new lawsuit, filed in the Northern California District Court, cites some laws in the United States and the state itself to accuse Apple of unfair business practices and misleading advertising. According to the complainants, Apple’s actions affect all owners of iPhones 6/6 Plus, 6s / 6s Plus, SE and 7/7 Plus, and add that the Battery Health feature was not sufficiently publicized by the company and does not represent a sufficiently satisfactory solution.

The lawsuit seeks to pay damages and pay the plaintiffs’ legal expenses. Apple did not comment on the case.

Essential patents

The second lawsuit of the day is literally billionaire: a company called Unwired Planet is demanding $ 8 billion(!) from Apple for alleged infringement of essential patents (standard-essential patents, or intellectual properties used for the application and use of basic standards and technologies).

Unwired Planet already has its history with Apple, and the last legal battle between the two companies – which also involved Apple’s alleged infringement of essential patents – was closed out of court in 2016. The new action has to do with intellectual property originally from Swedish Ericsson, currently owned by Unwired Planet.

The company, dedicated to mobile internet solutions, did not comment on the matter – nor did Apple.

Personal Access

At the same time that Apple takes, it also gives: just see this lawsuit recently filed by the legal department of Cupertino against the Israeli company IXI Mobile. The intention of Apple with the action is to prevent in court the resumption of a lawsuit filed by IXI in 2014.

Personal Access on iOS 13.1

Personal Access on iOS 13.1

More precisely, the Israeli sued Apple five years ago, claiming that the appeal Personal Access, from the iPhone, infringed on a patent that describes “a means to provide a wireless network using low-range radio signals”. Samsung and BlackBerry were also sued on the same basis, but the companies – along with Apple – won their shares.

Now IXI Mobile wants to have the case reviewed, with 68 additional complaints added to the process. Because of this, Apple filed a “counter-lawsuit” over the Israeli, seeking recognition before the court that the case has already been tried and there is no validity in the new arguments of the opponent. There is still no information as to whether the Apple order goes ahead, however.

FaceTime

Finally, Apple is on the Supreme Court trying to prevent a new lawsuit from being filed against the company. In this case, the opponent in question is the Straight Path IP Group (SPIP), patent troll who sued Apple in court in 2016 for an alleged patent infringement with FaceTime and other device-to-device communication technologies.

New MacBook Air with FaceTime running in full screen

SPIP lost the case after the court found that its patents had not been infringed; the company appealed the decision but was unable to reverse it. Dissatisfied, the “non-practicing entity” filed a petition addressed to the US Supreme Court, asking the judges to review what SPIP considered an incorrect procedure in the judgment of their case.

That’s where Apple comes in: Apple recently responded to the petition, telling the Supreme Court that “if you’re in a hole, stop digging”, referring to the SPIP situation. The Apple remembers that the opponent can suffer sanctions if it loses the dispute and, therefore, is trying to prolong the process; Cupertino’s lawyers added that SPIP’s argument “has no basis or merits” and should suffer the same fate as other similar petitions to the Court.

Let’s see what will come out of this whole story.

via iMore; AppleInsider: 1, 2; Apple World Today