http://techcrunch.com/2011/12/09/apple-made-a-deal-with-the-devil-no-worse-a-patent-troll/

Apple Made A Deal With The Devil (No, Worse: A Patent Troll)

JASON
KINCAID

Friday, December 9th, 2011115 Comments

Over the last two years, Apple has been engaged in vicious legal battles over smartphone patents, many of which are aimed at squelching (or squeezing money out of) manufacturers of devices running Android. And now, for some reason, it has given valuable patents to a patent troll — which is using them to sue many of the top technology companies in the world.

Meet Digitude Innovations, a firm based in Virginia that recently filed suit with the International Trade Commission alleging patent infringement by technology companies including RIM, HTC, LG, Motorola, Samsung, Sony, Amazon, and Nokia (note that Apple is not on this list). The ITC is a favorite for companies litigating over mobile phone patent disputes, as it can block the import of products long before a case has actually concluded.

Digitude was founded in 2010 and raised $50 million from Altitude Capital Partners, with aims to “acquire, aggregate, and license key technology areas within the consumer electronics and related technology fields in a patent consortium” — in other words, it buys up patents and then sues other companies until they settle and agree to pay licensing fees, because it’s generally less expensive than actually going to court.

From a Forbes article this past June:

Digitude is a new kind of patent investment vehicle because it seeks to team up with strategic players that can invest in Digitude not with money, but by contributing patents. The contributing entity would then get a license for all of Digitude’s patents, Kramer says.

In April, Digitude announced the “completion of its first such strategic partnership with one of the world’s leading consumer electronics companies” — which it didn’t name. The company later announced that additional (unnamed) parties have jumped on board as well, who will receive a portion of Digitude’s proceeds based on the value of the IP each party contributed.

Apple appears to be one of these participants, and may be the unnamed leading consumer electronics company that Digitude boasted about this past spring. Of the four patents that Digitude included in its claim this week, two were owned by Apple earlier this year, before they were transferred to Digitude.

The patents in question:

USPTO #6208879 — Mobile Information Terminal Equipment and Portable Electronic Apparatus

USPTO #6456841 — Mobile Communication Apparatus Notifying User Of Reproduction Waiting Information Effectively

In both cases, Apple transferred ownership of the patent to a company called Cliff Island LLC, which in turn transferred it to Digitude Innovations. In fact, Apple has transferred a dozen patents to Cliff Island LLC this year (though only two of these were named in this ITC suit).

You probably haven’t heard of Cliff Island LLC, because it appears to exist in name only. There is a next to no information about the company available online — though the patent filing does include an address: 485 Madison Avenue, Suite 2300 in New York City.

I was unable to find a phone number for the company, so I attempted to pay a visit to their office, only to find that it doesn’t appear to exist. But there are other tenants on the twenty-third floor of 485 Madison. One of which is Altitude Capital, the same IP-focused private equity firm that happened to lead Digitude’s $50 million funding round.

Put another way, Apple appears to have transferred its patents to the patent troll Digitude, though it first routed them through a shell company that shares the same office as Digitude’s lead investor and Chairman. Further evidence of the relationship between Apple and Digitude can be found on the ITC’s own website, where a list of files relevant to the lawsuit can be found. Many of these files are marked confidential, but it appears someone mistakenly left the file names intact. One of which is “Digitude-Apple License Agreement” (see screenshot below).

So what is going on? There are a pair of scenarios that seem plausible — though both of them are strange.

The first is that Apple is using Digitude as a hired gun of sorts in its patent offensive, giving the company valuable patents to wield against its opponents (while avoiding the waves of press that are spurred by each new lawsuit). But Apple hasn’t exactly been quiet about suing its rivals over smartphone patents, so it’s not clear what they’d gain from this.

The alternative is that Apple has given some of its patents to Digitude because the patent troll came after it first. The dozen patents Apple has handed over may have been part of a settlement with the firm, along with the license agreement (which would presumably give Apple the rights to its patents, and additional Digitude patents). This seems more likely.

But even if Digitude shot first, so to speak, it’s still hard to see Apple in a positive light here. This is Apple we’re talking about. The idea that the company didn’t have any options other than handing over valuable patents to a patent troll — knowing full well that it would then use those patents to sue other tech companies — seems ludicrous.

I spoke with Julie Samuels, Staff Attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation who focuses on patents, who points out that in some cases certain companies will sell their patents to other parties when they’re under financial stress. But Apple clearly doesn’t fall into that bucket.

If Apple were deliberately aiding Digitude, Samuels says “it would be horrifying — the patent troll problem is completely out of control. Apple has every legal right to sue over its patents, but it should be the one to do it”.

And if Apple was indeed threatened first by Digitude, and only handed over its patents as part of a settlement, she says she “cannot imagine any reasonable scenario where Apple didn’t have any other options”.

Both Apple and Digitude declined to comment.

Also, oddly, Digitude Innovations had a website as recently as December 4, but it apparently took it down in the last few days.

---
Love,
Nopayne

I don't fully understand all the business law behind these patent "wars" but from a layman's standpoint it all seems like some bullshit.

GamerTag and PSN: PokeEmAll

>it all seems like
>some bullshit.

The gist of it is that instead of competing properly in the marketplace, Apple is using litigation to to stifle competition instead.

And in this particular case, turning to one of the worst possible options: a patent "company" that exists by piggybacking on other companies' patents in order to sue competitors.

do you mind a quick explanation? a company like that only exists to look for patent infringements or something?

>>it all seems like
>>some bullshit.
>
>The gist of it is that instead of competing properly in the
>marketplace, Apple is using litigation to to stifle
>competition instead.
>
>And in this particular case, turning to one of the worst
>possible options: a patent "company" that exists by
>piggybacking on other companies' patents in order to sue
>competitors.

GamerTag and PSN: PokeEmAll

They buy up any patent they can get their hands on. Next they either license them or sue anyone who uses similar technology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_troll

---
Love,
Nopayne

---
Stoicism and chill.
---
Stay +.
---

---
Stoicism and chill.
---
Stay +.
---

_______________________________________

<<progressions.

Fucking shit, patenting software is bullshit. And awarding Apple a patent for a feature that they didn't even implement until last year?

FUCK APPLE.

http://phandroid.com/2011/12/21/apple-awarded-patent-on-in-call-app-switching-multitasking-smartphones-sound-familiar-to-you/

Apple Awarded Patent On In Call App Switching – Multitasking Smartphones Sound Familiar To You?
by Chris Chavez on December 21st, 2011 at 3:47 am

They’ve done it again. The boys at Apple must have some kind of strange patent voodoo because once again, the United States Patent and Trademark Office has awarded them with another IP to stick inside their portfolio, this time with a patent for a “portable electronic device with graphical user interface supporting application switching.” Sound familiar to you? It should. Somehow Apple received a patent for a multitasking smartphone that allows a user to switch between calls and apps. Yup, they seem to have patented Android. You best believe that with Apple’s small victory over HTC yesterday, their lawyers are already plotting new ways to stick it to Android manufacturers everywhere. What’s next? A patent on green robot mascots? Well, played, Apple. Well played…

Last time Apple should have won, but they didn't.

Let's see what happens this time.

Got it.

Sign me up for fuckery.

... then get back to me.

If Google was doing this same shit, my posts would be about Google. But fact of the matter is, litigation is going on all over the world for pretty frivolous bullshit, and the vast majority of it (if not all) is initiated by Apple.

You can love the devices, but don't excuse the company's bullshit.

And in Apple Vs. Google - I choose Apple.

(Apple hasn't personally fucked me over - Google has.)

... on frivolous grounds? Could you point me to a source? I'd love to read it because this is news to me.

Note that attacking litigation is different from defensive moves, like the acquisition of Motorola Mobility and the lending of patents to HTC.

>Note that attacking litigation is different from defensive
>moves, like the acquisition of Motorola Mobility and the
>lending of patents to HTC.

I'll sit back and enjoy your complaining now. It'll have no affect on the issues - and maybe you'll shit yourself at some point

Ignore the actual question and create spin. Here are some articles that confirm defense from patent trolls, not with intent to initiate litigation themselves:

Google's acquisition of MM:
http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2011/08/15/google-buys-motorola-and-its-giant-patent-portfolio/

Google lending HTC patents:
http://www.ubergizmo.com/2011/11/google-pledges-to-back-android-manufacturers-against-lawsuits/


I'm genuinely interested in having a discussion on this. If you want to keep hurling insults and avoid providing some sort of actual proof for your position, then why are you even in this thread?

So again, let me ask you... please provide proof of offensive litigation maneuvers from Google so we can maybe have a mature discussion on the issue.

As soon as Daring Fireball tells him what to say.

---
Love,
Nopayne

For you that IS compelling.

you just don't realize it.

The future is a dark one and Apple is a big harbinger for it...as 'evil' as google is at least they don't keep millions of users behind a walled garden (and get them indoctrinated to believe that's how it should be)

>And in Apple Vs. Google - I choose Apple.
>
>(Apple hasn't personally fucked me over - Google has.)

everyone's gotten fucked over by these companies in one form or another on a personal level. But this issue isn't about that.

What's seriously troubling is the literally global impact these patent wars could have in the future of the mobile industry. And Apple is gaining more fucking traction in this bullshit.

But it shows your mindset.

Apple = EVIL.

Google = Utopia.

You're a chump if that's your worldview.

Google's evil. But Apple, DEFINITELY EVIL.

..but so is going into this argument head first using said bullshit as justification on the blatant bullshit which is the whole patenting bullshit. The whole thing is bullshit that could backfire if & when the Google/Moto Mobility deal is vowed husband & wife by the governments & draw Googlity into the same bullshit of cat/mouse "AH HA! YOU STEALING TOO! THIEF THIEF THIEF!".

The whole "ANDROID STEALS A BUNCH!" angle is bullshit plain and simple for more reasons then one can shake a stick at.

People voluntary enter the walled garden. If they want to leave they can choose a different mobile OS. It's not like Apple has a monopoly.
________________________________

(屮ﾟДﾟ )屮

At least you can argue that the difference between platforms makes sharing apps impossible, but Apple has a track record of purposely hating on cross platform apps.

We won't even touch how it's pretty ridiculous we would never accept Microsoft or Apple dictating the programs we can only install on our computer, but suddenly with a phone we are cool with getting bent the fuck over.

That hasn't been true since 2009.

>At least you can argue that the difference between platforms
>makes sharing apps impossible, but Apple has a track record of
>purposely hating on cross platform apps.

As far as I know they don't have a problem with cross-platform apps but with certain cross-platform toolkits


>We won't even touch how it's pretty ridiculous we would never
>accept Microsoft or Apple dictating the programs we can only
>install on our computer, but suddenly with a phone we are cool
>with getting bent the fuck over.

Meh. There are a lot of people that have a problem with this, they choose to use a different OS. People that choose IOS know what they are getting in to. The phone is not they first place we are 'cool' with this though. You never hear people calling Nintendo, Microsoft or Sony evil because we can't install our own stuff on a console.
________________________________

(屮ﾟДﾟ )屮

>Meh. There are a lot of people that have a problem with this,
>they choose to use a different OS. People that choose IOS know
>what they are getting in to. The phone is not they first place
>we are 'cool' with this though. You never hear people calling
>Nintendo, Microsoft or Sony evil because we can't install our
>own stuff on a console.

Aka the class lawsuit over Sony taking out Linux compatibility on the console a few years back.

The problem is that mobile computing is a relatively new territory, and it's disheartening seeing people gladly hand over their rights because, for now, it just 'works'. It's like I love my iphone as the next person, but there are plenty of serious problems with the platform, and it's bit disheartening seeing people side with a major conglomerate over what ultimately boils down to improving the end experience for the end user (us)

http://www.droid-life.com/2011/12/29/apple-files-for-face-unlock-patent-are-you-kidding-me/

According to Apple patent investigator Patently Apple, the Cupertino based king of patent trolling has filed for a new facial unlock detection patent. Seriously, Apple? You don’t even have facial recognition technology out to the public yet, but your competitor does and you file for a patent on it? I mean, come on. We get that you hate Android with a passion, however, this just looks pathetic.

If you glance over the fancy little stick-figured depiction of this new technology, you will see that it matches up almost perfectly to what the same feature does in Android 4.0 (Ice Cream Sandwich). Let’s see, it says that the device will look for eyes and a mouth in normal locations, analyze weight differences, and then unlock if it matches up to the one on file. Yeah, that’s exactly how Android’s face unlock works.

Update: According to Engadget, Apple actually filed for this patent back in June before Android had unveiled their Face Unlock and is just not being disclosed to the public. It should also be noted that Google purchased a facial recognition software company around that same time. Tough to tell if that company has a patent for their software or not. Ahh the patent wars – can they be anymore obnoxious? (Cheers Dave!)

Update 2: A reader who just so happens to be a patent attorney has weighed in through the comments. Both of his remarks are worth a read, one of which we have pasted below. You can find them here and here.

I am a patent attorney specializing in computer hardware/software, telecom, mobile computing, etc., as well as a DL fan and reader. i see a lot of confusion about a number of items here so i want to clarify a few points that are clearly being misunderstood:

1. the shift from ‘first to invent’ to ‘first to file’ has nothing to do with prior art. no patent will ever be valid if there is publicly available prior art that has made the invention known to the public before the patent filing. The only difference arises in a case where A invented something before B, but B was quicker to file his patent application. Under the ‘first to invent’ doctrine, if A can prove that he invented first, he will receive the patent even if he filed his patent application later. first to file changes this, whereby it doesn’t matter when you came up with the idea – only when you filed the patent application.

2. no one (including apple) can simply get a patent on an ‘idea’ without (a lot) more. i can’t just patent the idea of ‘unlocking a phone with face recognition.’ in order for a patent to be valid, it must ‘enable’ the invention. in a nutshell, that means that there must be enough detail for someone else in the same field to be able to read the patent and understand exactly what the invention is, how it works, and how to make it. abstract concepts are not enough – there must be concrete examples,steps,etc., which spell it out (here, likely a series of algorithms).

Bleh.

http://card.mygamercard.net/lastgame/rjcc.png

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

... it's the pattern of behavior that's bullshit.

I don't care in any direction that they patent things. everyone does.

http://card.mygamercard.net/lastgame/rjcc.png

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

...it's another to use it frivolously and offensively to stifle competition.

When it's warranted, it's warranted. But using software patents like "slide to unlock" and "clickable phone numbers in browser" is taking it to another level.

>...it's another to use it frivolously and offensively to
>stifle competition.
>
>When it's warranted, it's warranted. But using software
>patents like "slide to unlock" and "clickable phone numbers in
>browser" is taking it to another level.

If Apple didn't patent certain aspects of their software, everyone would copy them. Before Apple popularized it, a touchscreen only phone was considered a fools errand, through their use of software and hardware they showed everyone. Apple's patent slide to unlock, protects them from people copying their years of research and development in methods to unlock a phone. Trust me, without the fear of patent lawsuit, samsung would copy Apple as much as they could. Patents haves also spurred innovation because now other OEMs have discovered other method (some better, some worse) to unlock the phone.

twitter: lategordon

Check out my podcast Long and Late Movie Show: http://itunes.com/podcast?id=498789655

>copying their years of research and development in methods to
>unlock a phone.

Years of research into turning on a phone?

Like, Hardware and Software guts and basic design I can understand...but when you start playing with general concepts like 'turning on a phone' it gets problematic.

Imagine if nintendo trademarked 'a button used to pause the action on the videogame screen'

I understand protecting assets, I understand protecting code, I understand protecting engineering. But for general user interface ideas, I don't think it's a good thing at all.

when you open your car door (if it's a nice car) all that shit, about how it works and makes it feel the way it feels, is patented. every bit of it.

http://card.mygamercard.net/lastgame/rjcc.png

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

GM isn't suing Toyota for having door handles that open sideways.

Again, having patents isn't an issue (although the nature of software patents nowadays is making that trickier).

The issue is that Apple is patenting as much as humanly possible, then initiating litigation anywhere and everywhere, and even going so far as feeding actual patent troll companies (original post in this thread).

Edit: And nowadays, with patent laws moving from "first to invent" to "first to file" this just gives Apple even more bullshit leverage.

the only difference is what you think you know about how these companies do business.

this is about to no longer be polite.

YOU ARE GODDAMN WRONG.

http://card.mygamercard.net/lastgame/rjcc.png

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

How so? I have no problems discussing the issue but I'd like to know how I'm wrong.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bx1LHioz6Zc

ad went out in march.

http://card.mygamercard.net/lastgame/rjcc.png

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

.

Still waiting for a response to post #19 btw.

awwwwwwww you guys all he wanted was some attention, yesh he dids.. yesh he diiiids!!!

-------------------------
“The other dude after me didn’t help my case. It was just like…crazy nigga factory going on.”
Dre makes no apologies for his own eccentricities. “I was young, and searching, trying to find myself,” he says. “Never did.”-- Andre B

you gotta pay the troll toll if you wanna get into that boy's hole, you gotta pay the troll toll to get in. you want the baby boy's hole, you come and pay the troll toll, you gotta pay the troll toll to get in.

troll toll!

what you say?

troll toll!

hey, hey, hey!

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2399245,00.asp

Dutch Court Denies Apple's Bid to Ban Samsung Galaxy Tab
By Chloe Albanesius
January 24, 2012 10:21am EST2 Comments

A Dutch court this week denied Apple's request to ban the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 in the Netherlands.

Apple has been fighting Samsung for months over accusations that Samsung copied the look and feel of the iPhone and iPad with its Galaxy line of smartphones and tablets.

Today's ruling comes about five months after another Dutch court imposed an EU-wide preliminary injunction against Samsung Galaxy smartphones, but declined to include the Galaxy Tab 10.1. Today's ruling, from the Gerechthof's-Gravenhage appeals court in The Hague, considered the design aspect of the Galaxy Tab patent claim, but reached a similar conclusion and sided with Samsung.

Apple is fighting design-related patent cases in several courts around the globe – from the U.S. to Germany. But determining design infringement can be a difficult task.

Patent blogger Florian Mueller said in a blog post that "the two companies need the courts in various jurisdictions to clarify where Apple's exclusive scope of protection ends and Samsung's freedom to compete begins. There's no mathematical formula based on which they could simply agree that Samsung's products are allowed to have a degree of similarity of up to (for example) 70 percent. Instead, they need guidance from judges."

Those judges tend to vary on the scope of the protection Apple has when it comes to its design patents. A U.S. court and the Dutch court, for example, said the scope was narrow whereas a German court found it to be "medium-range or broad," Mueller wrote.

Next week, a Dusseldorf court will issue a ruling that might lift a temporary ban on the Galaxy Tab 10.1 in Germany. Next month, another Dusseldorf hearing will also address the case against the Galaxy Tab 10.1N, a modified tablet Samsung introduced to get around the ban.
In a statement, Samsung said it was pleased with today's ruling.
"Samsung welcomes today's ruling by the court in the Hague, which affirms the August 2011 ruling that the design of the Galaxy Tab 10.1 is distinctive and does not infringe Apple's intellectual property rights," the company said. "This ruling again demonstrates that Apple's products simply do not warrant the intellectual property protections that it believes."

Samsung will continue to take all appropriate measures, including legal action, to ensure continued consumer access to our innovative products," a spokesman concluded.

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/12/01/20/new_apple_suit_claims_galaxy_nexus_infringes_on_slide_to_unlock_feature.html

New Apple suit claims Galaxy Nexus infringes on 'slide-to-unlock' feature

By Mikey Campbell

Published: 04:50 PM EST (01:50 PM PST)


Apple's latest German complaint against Samsung is the first time the company has named the South Korean electronics manufacturer's flagship Android handset in a lawsuit, claiming the device infringes the iPhone maker's "slide-to-unlock" utility model.

Mere hours after serving up a ruling on Friday for a failed Samsung lawsuit against Apple, the Mannheim Regional Court held a hearing about a so-called Gebrauchsmuster ("utility model") complaint the Cupertino, Calif., company is leveling against the Galaxy Nexus, reports FOSS Patents.

In Apple's first suit that directly names Samsung's Android-based smartphone, the company claims the Galaxy Nexus infringes on the "slide-to-unlock" feature first introduced with the original iPhone in 2007 and subsequently patented with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in October 2011. In 2006 the company also obtained a "utility model" registration for the feature in Germany.

FOSS Patent's Florian Mueller describes a "utility model" as a limited fast-track patent that companies are allowed to file for alongside traditional patents, and Apple has done both for the "slide-to-unlock" in Germany.

Examinations of utility model registrations are not as stringent as patent filings and don't carry a presumption of validity which is necessary for a court ruling. Thus the Mannheim court does not foresee an immediate decision in the "slide-to-unlock" suit as it believes the validity or invalidity of the invention is too close to call.

Judge Andreas Voss could opt to stay the case pending the conclusion of an identical suit at the Munich-based Federal Patent court to avoid inconsistent rulings, but Apple wants to obtain a decision as soon as possible. If a stay was instituted, the "slide-to-unlock" model could come dangerously close to its 10-year expiration date, becoming increasingly devalued commercially.

As part of its defense, Samsung is pointing to a relatively unknown Swedish device called the Neonode that persuaded a Dutch judge to doubt the validity of Apple's "slide-to-unlock" filing in 2011. Mueller notes, however, that the standard of availability for a device is much higher in a utility model case than a patent suit.

The Mannheim court is expected to announce either a ruling, a stay or decision to appoint an independent expert to help assess Apple's claims on March 16, 2012.

At best, hopefully this leads to a smartphone "cold war" where everyone just stops acting like fucktards

http://thenextweb.com/apple/2012/01/25/motorola-mobility-sues-apple-in-the-us-over-six-products-including-the-iphone-4s/

Motorola Mobility has sued Apple over various wireless patent violations by six of its products including the iPhone 4S, reports Retuers. The suit was filed in a Florida court and exercises patents related to antenna technology and more.

The case was filed in a Florida court on Wednesday and Motorola says that it involves six of Apple’s products including the iPhone 4S. Motorola claims that Apple has infringed on patents related to wireless antenna technology, software, data filtering and messaging.

Apple’s arguments that Motorola had done the same to several Apple design patents were denied by the U.S. International Trade Commission just last week.

While no mention was made of Google in the lawsuit, you can be sure that this has everything to do with the Android maker’s desire to protect its stake in the mobile market by gaining patent leverage. If Google were to win a patent case, via its soon-to-be-subsidiary Motorola Mobility, it would help to insulate it against further claims brought by Apple against it or any of the companies that make Android devices.

There is always the possibility that Google has bolstered Motorola’s complaints against Apple with its own trove of patents. This is something that it has done in Apple’s case against HTC.

In August of last year, Motorola was sued by Apple in Europe over the design of its Xoom tablet, in a case that is still ongoing.

Motorola has also filed suit against Apple in the US, claiming infringement against 18 patents in the District Courts, as well as with the International Trade Commission. Motorola has also recently won a GPRS (cellular radio) patent violation suit against Apple in Germany.

http://www.theverge.com/2012/2/11/2791830/apple-seeks-ban-on-Samsung-Galaxy-Nexus

Apple seeks to ban Samsung's Galaxy Nexus, but it's really going after Android 4.0

By T.C. Sottek on February 11, 2012 03:31 pm

Apple's intellectual property quest has traditionally gone after manufacturers and their dubiously familiar form factors, but now it looks like the company is aiming straight at Google and Android 4.0: Apple has filed a new motion in the US for a preliminary injunction that would ban the Samsung Galaxy Nexus, Google's flagship Android device.

While Samsung has been the target of Apple's ire with a barrage of other lawsuits, the Galaxy Nexus' hardware isn't really the center of attention here. Since the claim is specifically about key software patents in Android 4.0, other manufacturers putting the latest stock Android OS on their devices could be open to similar lawsuits if the court rules in Apple's favor.

Here are the patents at stake:

US Patent No. 5,946,647 - this patent was filed in 1996 (issued 1999) and covers detecting data, such as a phone number, in an email or web page, creating a link to that data, and initiating an action like calling the phone number when the user selects the link. The data could also include addresses, dates, etc.

US Patent No. 8,086,604 - this patent claims priority back to 2000 (issued Dec. 2011) and covers searching multiple sources of information (on device and elsewhere) through a single search interface, such as Siri. Apple specifically touts Siri in its injunction request, but also argues that a unified text search is covered by the patent as well.

US Patent No. 8,046,721 - this patent claims priority back to 2005 (issued Oct. 2011) and covers Apple's signature slide-to-unlock feature. While Apple already has patent coverage on an image unlock feature, this newest patent is obviously intended to be a bit broader — likely addressing potential workarounds implemented by Google and OEMs over the last couple of years.

US Patent No. 8,074,172 - this patent was filed in 2007 (issued Dec. 2011) and covers providing word suggestions while the user types on a touchscreen keyboard, where the suggestions can be accepted or rejected by the user.

Apple already won a ruling over patent #5,946,647 back in December, when the US International Trade Commission banned the importation and sale of HTC Android devices including the Sprint Evo 4G, Verizon Droid Incredible, AT&T Aria, and T-Mobile G2. The other patents in Apple's new claim are relatively new — all having been issued in late 2011 — so we'll have to wait and see what the court decides. We'll be monitoring the progress of Apple's new patent suit closely, and will update you accordingly.

Matt Macari contributed to this report.

when all is said & done they should do the reenactment of this drama with action figures, stop motion animation & explosions.