Patent US6947067
Ape TV is according to this patent. Google Chromecast does also infringe our patent as much as Apple Tv. You can read the full patent by downloading here.US6947067B2.pdf
The first claim is the most important:
Claim 1
1. A method for transferring image and sound data from a mobile phone to a television, comprising:
- generating a signal in the mobile phone from the image and sound data received by the mobile phone;
- transmitting the signal in a format that conforms to a Bluetooth-protocol as an output signal from the mobile phone;
- receiving the output signal from the mobile phone as an input signal at a module;
- converting the input signal to image-sound signals in the module; and
- connecting the image-sound signals from the module to the television, wherein the module is a mobile telephone accessory located at the television.
224 million people
In fact, two-thirds of Americans own at least a single connected device today. That means 224 million people can consume media and advertising on their terms, from catching a live episode of their favorite sitcom to binge-watching an entire season of a show through an OTT app. Yet despite the immense freedom that OTT oers, nearly 63% of TV connected device usage occurs in the living room. And as a result, living room viewing has become a more personalized, choicedriven experience that has opened the door to new opportunities for advertisers to connect with consumers.
http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/news/2018/the-connected-tv-experience
What
Tim Cook has said about an Apple television
There is no doubt that the Apple TV has become a big product for the company in recent years, now amounting to a billion dollar business for Apple. It is fair to say TV is no longer a hobby for Apple.
https://www.macworld.co.uk/news/apple/apple-television-3375319/
10.4.2018
- VirnetX Holding Corp. won $502.6 million against Apple Inc. after a federal jury in Texas.
Any equivalent element
can be considered as being equivalent to an element as expressed in
a claim if either following conditions is fulfilled:
1. The equivalent element
performs substantially the same function in
substantially the same way and
produces substantially same results as the element of the claim, or
2. It is obvious that same results as that achieved by the claim can
be achieved by means of the equivalent element
There's something in the United States called the
doctrine of equivalents that gives patentees protection that is broader than the literal language of their claims. So a patentee may argue that what you think is a
minor change is actually "equivalent" in the eyes of patent law.
Hypothetical Claim
One way for a court to determine DOE is using a hypothetical claim. A hypothetical claim determines whether a product has infringed on an existing patent by copying its prior art in such a way that consumers would assume it served the same function.
Essential patent
Professor Arto Lahti,Professor
of Entrepreneurship and Small Business Management
-who was the first entrepreneur professor in Europe, made a public announcement that US6947067 patent is an essential patent and he made also an estimation that the licensing revenue will be more than 500 million USD.
Professor Arto Lahti, Aalto University is a man of action, worked in practice e.g. in Kone and The Federation of Finnish Technology Industries, and been a presidential candidate for Finland.
• He has been a board member in 30 SMEs and a specialist for e.g. Ministry of Finance, Council of Nordic Governments, and tens of cities; for OKO Bank, Electrolux and
TeliaSonera; and for 300 growth firms in 10 EU-nations.
His main topics are ICT, patented technology, computer software, databases, trade secrets.
He has promoted for example:
Assets valuation
1.Technology-based
- Patented technology, computer software, databases, trade secrets.
2.Marketing-related
- Trademarks, brands, trade names,internet domain names, non-compete agreements.
3.Contract-based
- Licensing, royalty and standstill agreements, contracts for advertising.