While it was Pulse~LINK winning the last (but obviously not final) round of this multi-year tiff, the tables have turned once more. Tzero Technologies has just announced that the US Patent Office "issued an office action rejecting all claims of US patent number 6,970,448 asserted in a lawsuit brought by Pulse~LINK against Tzero in June 2007." This decision, coupled with a stay issued by the district court, will evidently bring the lawsuit to a close "for the foreseeable future." We're told that the legal struggles between the two are now officially over, but we're admittedly hesitant to believe it.

We've witnessed a few lawsuits related to Blu-ray, but this is the first one we can recall that perfectly fits the "patent troll" mold. The Patent Prospector has it that Acacia subsidiary Digital Security Systems is suing a smorgasbord of big BD players for infringing on a patent that it has held for years. Defendants named include Samsung, Best Buy, Denon, Funai, LG, Matsushita, Panasonic, Philips, Pioneer, and Sharp, though details beyond that are sadly scant. Oh, and if you're wondering where the complaint was filed, it was in the infamous Eastern District of Texas.

[Via FormatWarCentral]

It's been a while since we've heard about Canon's legal troubles with SED, but it sounds like things are taking a turn for the better -- the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last week that Canon had not broken its contract with Nano-Proprietary (now called Applied Nanotech Holdings) since Canon is now the sole owner of its previous joint venture with Toshiba, SED Inc. The court also reinstated Canon's license to the SED tech, but since Canon stopped working on the tech last year, it'll probably be a while before we see any SED displays actually show up. We'll see how it goes down -- hopefully those rumors of a skunkworks SED project inside Canon will make this all seem like a bad dream someday.

[Thanks, Alex]

Before you get all excited, we must remember that more often than not, Apple patent applications never amount to anything. That being said, this one is certainly within the realm of feasibility. A recent app dug up over at MacNN details an iTunes TV broadcast service that would theoretically beam out content to your iPod or iPhone via an adapter. The somewhat vague verbiage also mentions a "tagging" system of sorts, possibly one that could fetch content based on what you enjoy. In all honesty, we can't say we'd be champing at the bit to have some gaudy dongle hanging from our dock connector just to catch up on TV -- after all, there are far superior TV-friendly products out there than those from Cupertino -- but we can't deny that it would probably be a hit. Stay tuned, this one could get interesting.

At long last, it seems the legal spat between Pulse~LINK and Tzero has come to an end. Federal courts have ratified the former company's patents in a UWB-over-coax patent infringement case against Tzero, affirming that Tzero will now have to pay licensing fees to use Pulse~LINK's technology. In the settlement, it was noted that Tzero had "suspended development of products that were the subject of the legal action," and if it chose to re-introduce any of those wares, it would first cut a check to Pulse~LINK. Time to hug it out? Nah, we thought not.

Just an update on that Vizio vs. the world tiff, one of the major shareholders of the company and major manufacturer for the brand, Taiwan-based Amtran, chimes in that it already paid royalties for the disputed MPEG-2 patents between the end of 2007 and beginning of 2008. It's important to note that the company apparently had not seen the details of the lawsuit yet and couldn't give details, but we'll see how this affects things between the cheap HDTV manufacturer and MPEG LA.

It's no secret the rest of the display industry hasn't been happy with Vizio shaking up the low end with its cheap HDTVs, and now Mitsubishi and others have joined in a lawsuit accusing the manufacturer of refusing to license necessary patents. The 15 patents allegedly violated are for MPEG-2 compression that Mitsu, Sony, Samsung, Philips, Thomson, JVC and Columbia University of New York claim Vizio refuses to license. Vizio says it don't need no stinking licenses, since its suppliers already have them and it believes these licenses extend to its products. MPEG-LA also filed a similar suit against Target's TruTech house brand of televisions; while we'll have to wait for a ruling on the case to see who is right, it seems if they can't compete with these lower prices, other manufacturers will make sure cheap HDTVs cost more to make. For its part, Vizio says it does not believe this suit will have a materially adverse impact on its business, so for now, let the low-price flat screens roll.

Read - Mitsubishi, Samsung Sue Vizio Over Video Patents
Read - VIZIO Comments on MPEG-2 Lawsuit By Electronics Competitors

Oh sure, she looks friendly enough. But don't let her matronly, argyle looks fool you. Retired Columbia University Professor, Gertrude Neumark Rothschild, is looking to extract some cold, hard cash from a who's who of Consumer Electronics giants. Otherwise, they can forget about importing their goods into the US. Rothschild's complaint filed with the US International Trade Commission (ITC) on February 20th claims that some 30 companies are violating a patent she owns for light-emitting and laser diodes. Today, the ITC has agreed to investigate the matter. It's worth noting that Rothschild has already successfully tested the legislative waters with lawsuits against Philips and others -- the Philips matter was settled out of court earlier this month. In other words, her case has legs. Still, we have very little confidence in the ITC's grasp of the matter when they name "HD DVD players (e.g., Blu-ray disc players)" as products to be probed. Full list of companies named in the complaint after the break.

[Via Reuters and mrontemp]

Hot on the heels of that Apple TV patent which included broadcast viewing functions, we're getting a peek at a new application which suggests a possible DVR future for the folks from Cupertino. The concept breaks from standard TiVo-like solutions by making extensive use of a handheld component, which would be used to program and control the recordings, and could periodically download batches of shows for iPod-esque portability. On the set-top side, the box would function largely the way most DVRs do now, though Apple seems to be interested in infusing the process with its typical gloss, and part of the application is concerned with the possibility of gesture-based control for the unit (no surprise there). Of course, this isn't the freshest patent filing in the world, and it's possible Steve has already moved on to a more intuitive, telepathically controlled system by now.


[Via AppleInsider]

No stranger to the odd patent filing, Apple has once again delved into the dark waters of the unknown with an application for an Apple TV-like device with iChat-esque functionality, amongst others. In the patent, the company suggests a number of uses for widget overlays during video, including those triggered by content and timing, as well as widgets used for menus and navigation. The patent demonstrates how real-time widget updates may coincide with live broadcast television -- such as a scorecard overlay for a sporting event -- and also showcases a video chat function which can be used simultaneously during the playback or broadcast of content. Additionally, the filing shows a new remote which would have hot buttons for quick access to widgets, navigation, and the automatic milkshake mode (we might have wishfully made up that last one). Sure it looks good, but we'd happily take the latest Apple TV update until this comes along.

While we've seen a slew of patent applications revolving around DVR-based ad skipping, IBM is apparently looking to get in on the action with DVDs that feature non-skippable advertisements. As David Freeberg noted, we too are pretty surprised that such an idea isn't already patented, but nevertheless, the theory in and of itself is a double-edged sword. At first glance, hearing that we'd be forced to watch plugs -- which could be stored on the DVD itself or retrieved via the internet -- on our flicks doesn't exactly incite fits of jubilation, but as Freeberg points out, this could be used to offset or at least subsidize the actual cost of DVDs. Additionally, we could envision marketers licking their chops at the chance to insert modern, relevant ads into films via the web, but the actual impact on the consumer still seems murky. 'Course, there's no telling whether or not this patent will be granted, but it opens up some interesting avenues, nonetheless.

[Via ZatzNotFunny]

Swarmcast has been granted a patent entitled "Packet transfer mechanism over a peer to peer network," which the company's marketing and PR has mercifully cast as the "File Swarming Patent." The patent protects Swarmcast's techniques for multi-source streaming of HD video over the internet. Patents being what they are, it's not entirely clear how Swarmcast's claims differ from other peer-to-peer approaches to efficiently getting lots of bits to end users, but we do know we'd like to see internet distribution of HD content grow. The development of infrastructure and protocols to get this done suggests some big players have interest in this as well. Yes, it is just a step towards our real bandwidth desires, but at least it's a step in the right direction.

Just two months after Hitachi sued LG for PDP patent infringement in the litigious-playgrounds of Texas, LG has countersued Hitachi of course. LG's suit seeks monetary compensation and an injunction prohibiting Hitachi from violating its seven plasma display panel patents. Exactly the same claim Hitachi made earlier give-or-take a few patents. While we're fine with the plausible defense of intellectual property, LG's comment on the maneuver has us worried about a bleak future for consumer electronics litigation, "Japanese firms are filing more and more lawsuits as competition in the global display market has increased dramatically. We will proactively deal with the situation based on our patented and patent-applied-for technologies." In other words, firms must sue to compensate their dwindling margins. To make matters worse, LG and Hitachi are (or were) close business partners in areas which include consulting and data storage. A partnership with a Vision statement based on "mutual trust." Riiight.

Just when Hitachi had us all believing that it was planning on reaching new heights in the plasma market thanks to a ginormous PDP set and a thirsty overseas crowd, now we're seeing the fallback plan. Of course, we can't really suggest that Hitachi's latest lawsuit on LG's (surprise, surprise) plasma displays have anything to do with the firm's dreary numbers, but it has nevertheless filed a lawsuit in the ill famed "district court in Texas" (read: patent troll heaven) saying that "the South Korean company infringed its plasma display-related patents." The suit seeks the obligatory "monetary compensation for damages," but more interesting is the tidbit that requests a "permanent injunction prohibiting LG's plasma display panel product sales in the United States." According to a Hitachi spokesperson, the two outfits had "been in talks regarding the appropriate licenses for these seven patents," but apparently, neither side is backing down anytime soon.

If you think LG has a mess on its hands, it's suddenly not alone, as six other manufacturers touching one point or another in the LCD TV supply chain are now facing a patent lawsuit from Honeywell. In what smells awfully like another patent instance of patent trolling, Honeywell is suing Acer, AU Optronics, BenQ, Chunghwa Picture Tubes, Renesas Technology, and Denmos Technology as it claims that a patented "method of stopping liquid-crystal displays from flickering" has been unrightfully used. The firm has reportedly "sustained damages and will continue to sustain damages in the future," which they feel should translate into receiving incredible amounts of cash in order to resolve the situation. Reportedly, five of the six outfits under the lawsuit said that they "had not been informed" about the issue just yet, but we doubt it'll be too much longer before it floats to their respective legal departments.

[Via Inquirer]