Apple sued by patent troll STEC IP over data syncing in iCloud, iTunes and App Store

Apple is being sued by patent company Stec IP over patents that it holds referring to methods for synchronizing data, remotely accessing that data and more. The App Store, iCloud and iTunes are named in the suit as infringing on the patents.

The case was filed in the U.S. District Court of Delaware yesterday, and names seven separate data patents that the company has acquired from a variety of other companies including Symantec. Note that STEC IP is not to be confused with solid state drive manufacturer STEC, who felt the need to release PR just to tell people that they’re not affiliated.

The patent holding company also filed similar suits, though with a different mix of patents, against technology companies Oracle, Google and Amazon as well.

The 💜 of EU tech

The latest rumblings from the EU tech scene, a story from our wise ol' founder Boris, and some questionable AI art. It's free, every week, in your inbox. Sign up now!

The company names most of the patents, including the key ‘481 patents, as infringed by three core Apple products, including iCloud, iTunes and the ‘Apple App Store’. STEC IP is a patent troll. They buy up patents from other companies and use them to sue other, preferably larger, companies for cash.

Apparently, STEC IP saw these companies as a good target for these data synchronization patents, though it will take at least some discovery filing before we see if these are essential enough to post a threat for Apple or the others.

The list of patents is below:

• 6,925,481: “Technique for enabling remote data access and manipulation from a pervasive device” by Singhal et. al. and assigned to Symantec Corp.. Prosecuted by Doubet; Marcia L.. Includes 57 claims (5 indep.). Was application 09/848,394. Filed 5/3/2001 & Granted 8/2/2005.
• 5,825,891: “Key management for network communication” by Levesque et. al. and assigned to Raptor Systems, Inc.. Prosecuted by Fish & Richardson P.C.. Includes 9 claims (3 indep.). Was application 08/959,919. Filed 10/29/1997 & Granted 10/20/1998.
• 7,032,089: “Replica synchronization using copy-on-read technique” by Ranade et. al. and assigned to Veritas Operating Corporation. Prosecuted by Campbell Stephenson Ascolese LLP Rifai; D’Ann Naylor. Includes 24 claims (6 indep.). Was application 10/457,670. Filed 6/9/2003 & Granted 4/18/2006.
• 6,963,908: “System for transferring customized hardware and software settings from one computer to another computer to.” by Lynch et. al. and assigned to Symantec Corporation. Prosecuted by Gunnison, McKay & Hodgson, L.L.P.. Includes 69 claims (8 indep.). Was application 09/709,505. Filed 11/13/2000 & Granted 11/8/2005.
• 7,254,621: “Technique for enabling remote data access and manipulation from a pervasive device” by Singhal et. al. and assigned to Symantec Corporation. Prosecuted by Fenwick & West LLP. Includes 24 claims (3 indep.). Was application 11/075,437. Filed 3/7/2005 & Granted 8/7/2007.
• 5,495,607: “Network management system having virtual catalog overview of files distributively stored across network domain” by Pisello et. al. and assigned to Conner Peripherals, Inc.. Prosecuted by Fliesler, Dubb, Meyer & Lovejoy. Includes 23 claims (6 indep.). Was application 08/153,011. Filed 11/15/1993 & Granted 2/27/1996.
• 6,738,799: “Methods and apparatuses for file synchronization and updating using a signature list” by Dickenson and assigned to Symantec Corporation. Prosecuted by Fliesler Meyer LLP. Includes 46 claims (7 indep.). Was application 10/452,156. Filed 6/2/2003 & Granted 5/18/2004.

Complaint