Strategy in TECH...
On Monday, Snap One revealed that it had filed a lawsuit against two other well-known, if smaller, brands, alleging patent infringement and a range of illicit and unethical business practices that it claims violated existing contractual agreements. The defendants in this matter are Josh.ai and AVA.
The allegations, if true, are really quite surprising.
It was eight years ago – all the way back to January 2015 – when I first reported on what looked to be a pretty ugly legal action beginning between Monster, LLC and Beats Electronics, LLC. While the lawsuit filed by Monster took place in January 2015, the actions that led them to that point actually began much earlier than that, all the way back to 2011. And the relationship between the two significant CE brands actually began even further back to 2009, when the two came together to create Beats by Dr. Dre headphones, the wildly popular consumer headphone brand.
But when the relationship ended…it ended badly…
The Minnesota District Court for the Fourth Judicial District in the County of Hennepin held a hearing on Tuesday to determine the final disposition of the insolvent Audio Research Corporation which is operating under Assignment for the Benefit of Creditors (ABC) – a form of receivership. The assignee in this case, Patrick Finn of Lighthouse Management Group had executed an Asset Purchase Agreement (APA) with Acora Acoustics and was seeking an order from the judge to approve the APA and the transfer of the assets free and clear of any and all liens to Acora Acoustics.
A former high-level Samsung Electronics executive was indicted on Monday for industrial espionage as it is alleged that he stole trade secrets in the form of blueprints and designs for an advanced Samsung chipmaking factory in order to create an identical one in China. South Korean prosecutors say the executive’s actions jeopardized national economic security, according to a report by the Reuters News Agency.
A jury has come to a unanimous verdict in the matter of Sonos, Inc. vs. Google, LLC, a patent infringement lawsuit initially filed on September 22, 2020, in the U.S. District Court for California Northern District in San Francisco. In the case of one of the two patents under consideration – the ‘885 patent – the jury sided with Sonos, finding that Google products did infringe upon the Sonos patent and awarded them a judgment of $32.5 million.
Earlier this month the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington in Seattle issued a preliminary order approving a settlement in the matter of Stephen J. Tuttle, et al. v. Audiophile Music Direct, et al (including Mobile Fidelity Sound Labs). The settlement puts to rest all claims that have risen over the issue of Mobile Fidelity’s marketing of premium vinyl recordings as all-analog when in fact, in many instances the production used Direct Stream Digital as part of the manufacturing process.
In a result likely to be viewed by many as anti-climatic, U.S. District Judge James V. Selna has declared a mistrial in the matter of the $1.8 billion trade secret lawsuit between Masimo Corp. et al vs. Apple Inc. et. al. And while I am sure that both sides are disappointed that they failed to prevail, both can take away some positive elements from this null decision that will most likely inform their approach in a new trial.
In more late-breaking news from the Masimo v. Apple trade secrets trial, we learn that U.S. District Judge James V. Selna has cut Masimo’s trade secrets claims in half, down from twelve initial claims to now six viable claims. Based on the expert estimated value of the claims cut, that takes this case from one valued at $3.1 billion in damages to one now valued at $1.8 billion.
In a surprising and rather dramatic late-trial incident, an Apple witness violated a pre-trial order from U.S. District Judge James V. Selna meant to limit the amount of evidence to be presented, and – upon a motion from Masimo – he reversed that order, allowing Masimo to reveal more evidence potentially detrimental to Apple. Specifically, jurors learned that Apple had not just hired two Masimo executives as they had been told, but rather, the tech giant had hired as many as five more (for a total of seven) employees away from Masimo.
The Masimo Corporation $3 billion trade secret misappropriation, patent infringement, and patent ownership trial against Apple, Inc. is continuing and witnesses are offering the jury sharply divergent views of the many elements of this case. While those opposing viewpoints are fairly clear, what is not clear is how the jury is interpreting all of this information, and which side they feel is presenting a true picture of the situation.
