Looks like they stepped in it now:
Jan 6. Finally an update on this terrible issue from Google. https://www.googlenestcommunity.com/t5/Blog/Upcoming-Speaker-Group-changes/ba-p/77811
"Sorry I can't change the volume on this device" is the current response trying to change the volume on a stereo pair or group containing a pair. A bug? Then I found this on Bloomberg.
"Two of the five patents involve techniques to synchronize audio playback and thereby eliminate minor differences that the ear can interpret as echoes. The others involve ways to pair up speakers to create stereo sounds, adjusting volumes of either single or groups of speakers with a single controller, and a way to easily connect the system to a home’s Wi-Fi."
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-11-19/sonos-case-against-google-gets-closer-scrutiny-by-trade-agency
Edit. Google forum complaints. https://www.googlenestcommunity.com/t5/Speakers-and-Displays/Google-Nest-Mini-gen-2-keeps-saying-quot-Sorry-I-can-t-change/td-p/64413
This suit is in regard to the 506, 339, and 918 Patents. Links to documents below.
All have the following point in the complaint- Samsung had knowledge of the ’339 Patent no later than August 2, 2021 via its access to Netlist’s patent portfolio docket.
What Netlist is asking for?
WHEREFORE, Netlist respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment in its favor ordering, finding, declaring, and/or awarding Netlist relief as follows:
A. that Samsung infringes the Patents-in-Suit;
B. all equitable relief the Court deems just and proper as a result of Samsung’s infringement;
C. an award of damages resulting from Samsung’s acts of infringement in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 284;
D. that Samsung’s infringement of the Patents-in-Suit is willful;
E. enhanced damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284;
F. that this is an exceptional case and awarding Netlist its reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285;
G. an accounting for acts of infringement and supplemental damages, without limitation, prejudgment and post-judgment interest; and
H. such other equitable relief which may be requested and to which Netlist is entitled.
Hi all,
I hope you can aid me here - for a second stage interview, I have been asked to produce a presentation touching upon the recent LULULEMON v NIKE where Nike have accused Lululemon of patent infringement for making and selling the Mirror Home Gym and related mobile apps (based on UK law).
It has been a while since I have prepared any legal piece of work, as I graduated university a few years ago and I did not study intellectual property law (the role in question is not an IP specific role) so it would be helpful if I could get a few pointers. I'm confident in my presentation abilities but in terms of the actual content I would very much appreciate a few key cases.
I have decided I will defend Lululemon in this case.
Any suggestions and pointers will be greatly appreciated once again!
So, help me out figure this out!
If the patents aren't going to Facebook, then where is the money for infringement?
I believe Facebook conceded to Blackberry (since they won in Germany), but there is no money on the books!
OR IF NOT...
Then Blackberry dropped the suit against Facebook so the patent buyers could go after them on their own. "The consortium" might be a bunch of lawyers that figures they can pimp the patents one by one to the highest bidders, and sue everyone else on the list. A lot of dirty work that BB wouldn't want their name all over, but huge value to a team working on chopping it up. There would be a lot of buyers for certain tech covered by those patents, but very few that would want them all for big dollars.
The "price is already agreed on" (Chen). That could mean that Facebook already agreed to the infringement and offered an amount. The consortium's bid might be based on that value of infringement and a buy price on the patents all in one!
Either way, I think the deal is massive! Patents, and infringement in one big deal!
Thoughts?
Overview of the ’912 Patent The ’912 patent describes memory modules that purportedly have the capability of expanding the number of memory devices that can be accessed by a computer. The ’912 patent provides: The memory capacity of a memory module increases with the number of memory devices. The number of memory devices of a memory module can be increased by increasing the number of memory devices per rank or by increasing the number of ranks. For example, a memory module with four ranks has double the memory capacity of a memory module with two ranks and four times the memory capacity of a memory module with one rank. Ex. D (’912 Patent) at 2:23–30. 13
Case 1:21-cv-01453-UNA Document 1 Filed 10/15/21 Page 14 of 82 PageID #: 14 A given total amount of module memory (e.g., 4GB) may be provided by using a small number of high-density memory devices or a large number of low-density memory devices. The ’912 patent states: Market pricing factors for DRAM devices are such that higher- density DRAM devices (e.g., 1Gb DRAM devices) are much more than twice the price of lower-density DRAM devices (e.g., 512 Mb DRAM devices). In other words, the price per bit ratio of the higher- density DRAM devices is greater than that of the lower density DRAM devices.
Netlist appears to allege that the Per DRAM Addressability (“PDA”) mode, as described in JESD79-4C and JESD82-31A, practices certain limitations of claim 16 of the ’912 patent. Netlist has alleged that the PDA mode allows programmability of a given device on a rank using the Mode Register Set (“MRS”) function. In addition, Netlist has alleged that the Rank Multiplication Mode as described in JESD82-30 for LRDIMM DDR3 Memory Buffer (MB) Specification practices certain limitations of claims 1, 15, 28, 39, 77, 80, 82, 86, 88, and 90 of the ’912 patent. For at least the reasons explained in Count IV, the Samsung DDR4 Memory Modules do not infringe the ’912 patent.
Netlist is also obligated to license the ’912 patent on RAND terms to implementers of certain DDR4 Standards. Upon information and belief, Netlist wrote a letter to JEDEC on April 1, 2010, disclosing the ’912 patent in connection with the JC40 and JC42 committees. Ex. J (’912 Letter). Netlist submitted a Letter of Assurance on November 22, 2010 related to DDR2 and DDR3 technology, Ex. K (’912 LOA), but withdrew that commitment on December 6, 2010, when Netlist submitted a Notice of Refusal, Ex. L (’912 Refusal). Netlist withdrew its Notice of Refusal
... keep reading on reddit ➡8. In early 2006, Netlist met with Google and disclosed under NDA some of the 21 inventions in the then-pending patent application that led to the '386 patent, explaining how those 22 inventions could provide significant savings to Google. Google ultimately informed Netlist that it 23 was uninterested in pursuing such technology.
That is from Netlist answer to complaint. That document is linked below. Shortly thereafter Netlist filed for infringement on the 912 patent. The 386 claims were dismissed as Netlist focused on the 912 patent.
Everything was stayed for the IPR review. We know the outcome of that was Netlist Victory with 78 claims found in their favor. In a Rule 36 Unanimous Judgement of a 3 Judge panel June of 2020 the 912 Patent was validated.
Document 10 Google vs Netlist
Netlist' legal team only has to prove Claim 16 of the '912 patent for DDR4 Samsung modules infringement. Samsung did about $40 to $50B revenue of this since 2015 LRDIMM & RDIMM. The second number of DDR devices smaller than the first number of DDR devices and the second number of ranks smaller than the first number of ranks & DDR4 128 GB modules do this 8X4 ranks & devices. Also I was witness Samsung admitted the delay lock loop is substantially the same as PLL. & DDR4 server has 8X 3 slots 128GB &the command signal goes to only one DDR device at a time per 3 slots.
