Apple settles GUI lawsuit, licenses GUI technology from IP Innovation

Acacia Research Corporation announced today that IP Innovation, a wholly owned subsidiary that is a part of the Acacia Technologies group, has entered into a Settlement and License Agreement with Apple Inc. covering patents that relate to graphical user interface (GUI) systems. The Agreement resolves patent litigation that was pending in the District Court for the Eastern District of Texas with respect to certain Apple products.

Acacia Research Corporation comprises two operating groups, Acacia Technologies group and CombiMatrix group. Information about the Acacia Technologies group and the CombiMatrix group is available at http://www.acaciaresearch.com

28 Comments

  1. IP innovation specializes in “collecting” IPs so they can sell or sue.
    That’s their primary business.
    So I would suspect most of their daily activities are related to searching for “violations” so they can litigate.

  2. From their “About us” blurb

    Acacia Technologies Group is in the business of acquiring, developing, licensing and enforcing patents. We help patent holders to protect their patented inventions from unauthorized use and to generate revenue from licensing and, if necessary, enforcing their patents. Our clients are primarily individual inventors and small companies with limited resources to deal with unauthorized users but include some large companies wanting to generate revenues from their patented technologies.

    Law: the only game where the best players get to sit on the bench. ~ Author Unknown

  3. To me, this is a case where innovative thinking (i.e., manipulate the system to one’s favor) sucks.

    God help us if everyone were to turn toward patenting ideas rather than realizing them.

  4. Not only tabbed windows, but Spotlight’s category dividers and any aspect of Finder wherein windows created on the screen that have controls to display multiple views of the same information.

    Apparently, Xerox is the original offender who encroached on someone else’s innovation and IMO should be liable as well, especially if they benefitted financially by licensing this technology to Apple.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.