In what seems to be the biggest headline grabbing lawsuit in the mobile device world today, the patent-infringement battle between Apple Inc. and Samsung Electronics has quickly picked up pace as they begin trial this week.

Apple Inc. argues that Samsung has breached several patents related to its iconic design and user software. In an opening statement, Apple attorney Elhinny stated that, “it’s easier to copy than to innovate.” Samsung’s Galaxy Nexus and Galaxy Tab 10.1, both unveiled in 2011, drew stark resemblance to the “ornamental design” of Apple’s popular iPhone and iPad devices. Furthermore, the Galaxy devices function similar to that of the iPhone with the “rubberbanding”, “slide to unlock” and “tap to zoom” capabilities. An injunction was placed this June by Judge Koh on the sale of Galaxy Nexus and Tab 10.1 but Samsung has made its way to appeal it.

The South Korean titan bites back, countersuing Apple for infringing its patent on the 3g data technology. Samsung attorneys also denounce the aesthetics of the iPhone and iPad as novel. New evidence shows that Sony had acquired the idea of a slab-like touchscreen phone long before Apple launched the iPhone in 2007. Unfortunately, these findings were denied in court. Samsung’s attorneys have since then questioned the impartiality of Judge Koh.

The stakes are nonetheless high for both companies and it may affect the consumer electronics industry as a whole. Apple is seeking up to $2.5 billion dollars for damages while Samsung is expecting to reap 2.4% in royalties for each device sold.

Macys Inc, a multibillion dollar US chain of department stores, has recently filed a lawsuit against Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia (MSLO) for granting J.C. Penny the right to sell MSLO products in stores. According to a 2006 contract, Macy’s has been given the exclusive right to sell these home products until 2018. The agreement between both J.C. Penny and MSLO was established soon after J.C. Penny had purchased a stake for $38.5 million last winter. Not only does this serve as a breach of contract, but it will place Macy’s at a competitive disadvantage in the scope of business. While a preliminary injunction has been enforced, Supreme Court Justice Jeffrey Oing is convinced the court's decision will favor Macy’s.

After losing significant market share in the past few years, the Martha Stewart line was supposed to be a core concept of J.C. Penny’s new business strategy set to end in 2015. A spokesperson for MSLO denies any sort of violation and will continue to defend the company's stance; a spokesperson for J.C. Penny declines to comment. Both parties are expected to appear in court this November.

An Illinois LinkedIn user filed a $5 million class action lawsuit against the well-known professional networking website this week.  The claim comes shortly after the reported security breach and hacking of thousands of customer usernames and passwords.  The suit, filed in the Northern District of California, claims that LinkedIn violated its own privacy policies and user agreements because it did not follow industry security standards, leaving its customers’ personal information vulnerable to the public at large.  Representatives on behalf of LinkedIn insist that the claim is without merit and that no one was actually damaged in the security breach.  However, Plaintiff’s attorneys are moving forward with the case in California as they seek to certify a class for the lawsuit.

The United States Supreme Court has sided with AT&T Mobility, in a case that is bound to pose a challenge to Los Angeles class-action attorneys.  The court has held that the company can enforce a provision in a cell phone contract that requires customers to settle their disputes individually through arbitration, instead of filing class-action lawsuits.

The lawsuit is related to a class-action lawsuit in which plaintiffs alleged that AT&T Inc. charges sales cell phones advertised as free.  In 2006, Vincent and Lisa Concepción filed a class-action lawsuit against AT&T Mobility.  The company had charged the couple $30 in state taxes for what was supposed to be a free cell phone.  The couple filed a lawsuit alleging violation of California's laws.

AT&T argued that the couple was bound by a clause in their cell phone contract that required them to resolve disputes through arbitration, without any right to a class-action lawsuit.  Several lower federal courts in California agreed with the couple.  However, the Supreme Court has said that consumers are bound by arbitration clauses even when class-action lawsuits are supported by state laws.

It was a divided 5-4 ruling, along ideological lines.  The court’s four liberal members, including Justices Sonja Sotomayor, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan wrote in dissent, saying that if the ability to file class-action lawsuits was taken away, then it would discourage small dollar claimants from recovering compensation. 

The Supreme Court’s decision shouldn't be too surprising to California class-action lawyers considering that the Supreme Court typically favors arbitration processes laid down in the Federal Arbitration Act.

Last month, Microsoft cofounder Paul Allen dropped a bombshell of sorts when he announced his decision to sue some of Silicon Valley's biggest companies.  Just about every major technology company in recent years, from Google and Yahoo to Facebook and YouTube, is named in the lawsuit which accuses the companies of violating a number of patents.  Allen's lawsuit is based on four patents that were obtained since 2000 by Interval Research, a now-defunct R&D shop cofounded by Alan and David Liddle. 

The patents include several that involve e-commerce and online search.  The lawsuit doesn't specifically allege how the defendants have violated these patents. However, a total of 11 companies are named in the lawsuit.  The oldest of the patents was developed in 2000, and the most recent was in 2004, which begs the question - Why has Paul Allen filed this lawsuit only now?

In fact, the delay in bringing the lawsuit could prove to be Allen's undoing.  Judges are not likely to look favorably at a patent infringement lawsuit where the plaintiff has pretty much sat on the patent for years, while others were supposedly violating them.  Any California patent infringement lawyer knows that an unusual delay could negatively impact the result of your claim.  So far, Allen has not come forward to explain the delay in legal action.  His lawyer says that it took many years to go over his patent portfolio.

Legal analysts are wondering if Paul Allen's health has something to do with this lawsuit.  He was recently diagnosed with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.  He has been successfully treated, but maybe the health scare has caused him to start thinking in terms of his legacy.  After all, he was one half of the biggest teams in the history of information technology.

It was hardly an unexpected verdict. In fact, shortly after Viacom filed a $1 billion copyright infringement lawsuit against Google and YouTube, for allowing allegedly copyrighted videos to be uploaded onto the world's most popular video portal, the two companies engaged in backroom negotiations to arrive at a solution. A judge has now ruled in favor of Google.

Viacom filed the lawsuit in 2007, alleging that thousands of copyrighted videos were being uploaded on YouTube, and that these violated its copyright. Each minute, approximately 24 hours worth of video are uploaded onto YouTube. Some of this content includes TV shows like The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. Viacom insists that YouTube allowed such content to be uploaded on the portal, even after becoming aware that it was copyrighted material.

The company has lost its lawsuit after a federal judge in a Manhattan court delivered a verdict in favor of YouTube. The judge dismissed the lawsuit based on provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. These provisions protect web service providers from copyright infringement lawsuits, if the service provider removes the infringing material after being asked to by the copyright owner. In YouTube's case, Viacom asked the company to remove thousands of videos that it claimed infringed its copyright. To YouTube's credit, it removed most of the offending material within 24 hours. However, web service providers are not required to scan their own sites for any copyrighted videos that have been uploaded.

Viacom alleged that YouTube had been aware of copyrighted videos being uploaded on the portal, but did nothing to stop it. The answer to that is simple - the company was not required to police its site or ask persons to remove copyrighted material unless the copyright owner requested it to do so. The judge ruled that just because YouTube knew about the copyrighted videos that existed on its site, it did not constitute copyright infringement.

Even though the verdict was not unexpected, it will serve as a precedent for California business and commercial litigation attorneys for the way lawsuits involving copyright infringement on the Internet proceed, from here forward.