Print this article | E-mail this article | Comment on this article

Company Sues 23 for Text Completion Tech

By Tim Conneally, BetaNews

November 14, 2007, 11:30 AM

Delaware firm Autotext Technologies has filed a patent infringement lawsuit against 23 major technology companies including Apple and IBM, regarding predictive word processing.

Autotext is suing the following companies: Apple, AT&T, Helio, Hewlett-Packard, HTC America, IBM, Kyocera, LG Electronics USA, Microsoft, Motorola, Nintendo of America, Nokia, Nuance Communications, Palm, Qualcomm, Research In Motion, Samsung America, Sanyo North America, Sony, Sony Ericsson, T-Mobile, Verizon Wireless, and Zi Corporation.

All companies listed in the lawsuit, Autotext alleges, are infringing on a "computer-based transcription" patent that was filed in 1994. The patent is loosely about predictive word processing, where a list of words is presented when a user begins to input letters, hence the Autotext nomenclature.

Most of the infringing devices are cellular handsets, but the non-phone instances are especially noteworthy. IBM's Lotus Notes, Qualcomm's Eudora 7.1 mail client, Mac's OS X 10.4 and Safari, Nuance's T9 system, and also Nintendo's Wii and Sony's PS3 all come into question in the suit.

Autotext is a subsidiary of Acacia Research, a company in the business of acquiring, developing, licensing and enforcing patents who was recently charged with engaging in frivolous litigation. In August, the company's Micromesh Technology Corp. v. American Recreational Products was deemed a "frivolous infringement investigation" by a Northern California Judge.

The company's latest suit was filed November 9 in the Northern District Court of Ohio.

Add a Comment (9 Comments)

BetaNews reserves the right to remove any comment at any time for any reason. Please keep your responses appropriate and on topic. Foul language and personal attacks will not be tolerated.

By mgprice9

edited Nov 18, 2007 - 6:19 PM

wouldn't there be a cross over to the recent patent Wordlogic was just granted this month from the US patent office??

http://tinyurl.com/2k8la8

Score: 0

By Tounces

edited Dec 1, 2007 - 1:15 AM

There indeed seems some crossover. Wordlogic's patent, I believe, has a focus on the G.U.I. This includes details on how completion candidates are displayed as well as further "baby" completion candidates which are birthed when more letters are added to an intended word.

Score: 0

By SkepticalOne

edited Nov 15, 2007 - 12:39 AM

There was a product prior to 1994 that did this on the Macintosh OS 7. I don't recall the name, but I bought the product back then. It would fill in your typing based on what you were typing. It was advertised for people to that didn't type well. :)
I even recall the booth they were selling it in.

Score: 0

By tspcar12

edited Nov 14, 2007 - 1:31 PM

The prior art part of the patent process was amended in 2004. They may or may not have a case. The amended law has tended to limit the use of prior art as a claim against another company.

Finally, it's interesting that they filed in Ohio where they may feel that they can get a more favorable verdict than in Ca.

Score: 0

By bourgeoisdude

posted Nov 14, 2007 - 1:14 PM

"In August, the company's Micromesh Technology Corp. v. American Recreational Products was deemed a "frivolous infringement investigation" by a Northern California Judge."

Even a northern California Judge thought it frivilous. Should be struck down...hopefully...

Score: 0

By prod

posted Nov 14, 2007 - 1:04 PM

Prior art: Dictionary

Score: 0

By mikeeberhart

posted Nov 14, 2007 - 1:53 PM

No doubt!

Score: 0

By paschott

posted Nov 14, 2007 - 12:41 PM

Just read (skimmed) through it - while they give an example of specialized cases, the patent doesn't seem to limit itself to that. If there's no prior art or something that was being independently developed when this was filed, they may have a valid case.

My biggest problem here is that predictive data entry really has been around for some time now and it seems a little late to file a lawsuit. Why wasn't a suit filed almost 10 years ago when cell phones were really starting to take advantage of this? Even 5 years ago, I could possibly still see this. Now? It does seem like a waste of time.

Still, unless there's prior art or someone can somehow prove they came up with this idea on their own, they really may have a case.

Score: 0

By andrey

edited Nov 14, 2007 - 12:12 PM

wow, company stays in business just to file lawsuites and waste taxpayer's money.

I also don't belive something "loosely worded" is going to be held as a valid argument the court of law, especially with today when "predictive texting" became a commodity in similar way as "http" protocal, SMS, etc... Stupid case and a waste of time and money.

Score: 0

Dec 1 - 9:34 PM ET Alltel breaks in a mobile wallet with mFoundry

Dec 1 - 7:38 PM ET Intel tries to turn the tables on AMD in document discovery dispute

Dec 1 - 6:59 PM ET Palm to restructure yet again, may cut more jobs

Dec 1 - 4:58 PM ET Blockbuster downloads headed for more devices via Live Mesh

Dec 1 - 4:55 PM ET AOL's PlaySavvy speaks to game-shy parental units

Dec 1 - 4:41 PM ET Less bad news than anticipated for the semiconductor industry in 2008

Dec 1 - 3:51 PM ET 'Xohm' makes way for 'Clear,' as Sprint/Clearwire merger moves ahead

Dec 1 - 2:01 PM ET Chasing down the latest Cyber Monday tech deals

Dec 1 - 12:50 PM ET Will 'Cyber Monday' fare better than a weak 'Black Friday?'

Dec 1 - 12:38 PM ET Microsoft Cashback goes offline to Black Friday shoppers