Apple settles with patent troll SimpleAir

SimpleAir, Inc. today announced that it has entered a confidential License Agreement with Apple pursuant to which Apple has taken a license to SimpleAir’s patents. The agreement settles the litigation with Apple.

SimpleAir filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Apple on September 23, 2009, in the U.S. federal district court for the Eastern District of Texas. The case was set to go to trial on April 23, 2012, in Marshall, Texas before the Honorable Michael H. Schneider. SimpleAir and Apple reached the principal terms of a settlement at the courthouse shortly before the trial commenced.

SimpleAir is an inventor-owned technology licensing company with interests and intellectual property in the wireless content delivery, mobile application, and push notification market spaces. SimpleAir is represented by Jeff Eichmann and Greg Dovel of Dovel & Luner LLP and by Elizabeth DeRieux, Calvin Capshaw, and Jeff Rambin of Capshaw DeRieux LLP.

Source: SimpleAir, Inc.


  1. “SimpleAir is an inventor-owned technology licensing company…”

    If they are truly “inventor-owned” and the product being licensed was created by one of the owner/inventors, then calling them “patent troll” is a bit harsh. If they invented the technology themselves, they can certainly license that technology with any moral qualms from anyone. The fact that Apple has capitulated and licensed the software suggests that Apple believes that the company owns the technology.

    You can’t call these guys “trolls” and not use the same term on Apple. If they invented the technology, they are certainly entitled to license it to Apple (and Apple is not entitled to use it without licensing it).

    1. I don’t think you understand the definition, it isn’t expressly derisive. A patent troll is someone who doesn’t actually want to use the patents he owns (invented or purchased) but just wants to license them to companies who actually want to make products.(i.e. they are “trolling” for licensees)
      Though I agree, an inventor who wants to license his ideas is in a completely different category from those lawyer owned companies who acquire patents simply to sue companies making actual products. (and I think a grey zone exists there)
      Who was it that first said “What we need to do is shoot half the lawyers, just to get the other half’s attention”?

Reader Feedback

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