Openwave accuses Apple
Openwave accuses Apple, RIM phones, tablets of patent infringement
Software maker Openwave Systems isn’t going to sit idly by and watch all the other kids have all the patent lawsuit fun. On Wednesday, the San Francisco Bay area company filed suit with the International Trade Commission and a federal court in Delaware accusing Apple and RIM mobile devices of infringing on five of its mobile Internet connection patents. Openwave is asking to be paid licensing fees by the two mobile heavyweights, joining a long line of players in the mobile space who are currently using the U.S. patent system to squeeze revenue from their intellectual property portfolios.
The complaint lists Apple’s iPhone 3G, iPhone 3GS, iPhone 4
, iPod touch, iPad and iPad 2, and RIM’s Blackberry Curve 9330 and Blackberry PlayBook as infringing on five Openwave patents. Those are, according to Openwave:
Patent that generally allows a user to use e-mail applications on a mobile device when the network is unavailable – such as when a user is on an airplane.
Patent that generally allows the mobile device to operate seamlessly, and securely, with a server over a wireless network.
Patent that generally allows access to updated versions of applications on mobile devices.
Patent that generally allows consumers to experience an improved user experience in navigating through various pages of information without delay.
Patent that enables data in the cloud to be accessed or shared by different devices such as mobile handsets or computers.
The suit asks the ITC to bar the import and sale of the accused devices. In a statement, Openwave CEO Ken Denman said it ultimately wants licensing fees for the technology:
Openwave invented technologies that became foundational to the mobile Internet. We believe that these large companies should pay us for the use of our technologies, particularly in light of the substantial revenue these companies have earned from devices that use our intellectual property. Before filing these complaints, we approached both of these companies numerous times in an attempt to negotiate a license of our technology with them and did not receive a substantive response.