RSSCompany Sues 23 for Text Completion Tech
By Tim Conneally | Published 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.
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
|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
|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
|"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
|Prior art: Dictionary
Score: 0
|No doubt!
Score: 0
|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
|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
|