Case Name: Visual Interactive Phone Concepts, Inc. v. Apple, Inc.
Docket Number: 2:2011-cv-12310
Date Filed: 5/25/2011
Judge: Hon. David M. Lawson
Status: Closed

On May 25, 2011, Visual Interactive Phone Concepts, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) filed suit against Apple, Inc. (“Defendant”) for patent infringement of  U.S. Patent Nos. 5,606,361 (“the ‘361 patent”) and 5,724,092 (“the ‘092 patent”). The ‘361 and ‘092 patents generally cover different interactive mailbox facilities that could be utilized by videophones. “Videophones” is defined in the patents as “any device having the capabilities to receive video/voice and or video/text as its primary function and which, in the future, may have additional capabilities added to it that will enable it to perform functions that a PC computer system performs today” and includes cellular videophones, wireless videophones and all videophones integrated with additional PC capabilities or technologies (i.e., disk storage, CDs, diskettes, and memory in megabyte range).

Plaintiff alleged that many of Defendant’s products infringed on Plaintiff’s patents by providing the following videophone-services: a mobile TV and video service, a mobile music service, a Media Net service, and a Media Mall services. Plaintiff asked for the following relief: a permanent injunction, damages, treble damages for intentional and willful infringement of the patents, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest and costs, attorneys’ fees, and any other relief the court saw as proper.

Defendant filed its Answer on July 15, 2011, asserting the following: (1) Defendant did not infringe on the ’361 patent; (2) the ’361 patent was invalid; (3) Defendant did not infringe on the ‘092 patent; and (4) the ‘092 patent was invalid. Defendant sought the following relief: (1) dismissal of Plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice; (2) dismissal of all remedies that Plaintiff requested; (3) entry of judgment on all of Defendant’s counterclaims in favor of Defendant; (4) attorney’s fees, costs, and expenses; and (5) any other relief the court found proper. Additionally, Defendant filed a Motion to Transfer Case on July 28, 2011, and a Motion to Dismiss on August 8, 2011.

On November 23, 2011, the parties filed a Stipulation to Transfer Venue to the Northern District of California. On November 30, 2011, the court transferred the case to the Northern District of California.