ORACLE'S LAWSUIT AGAINST GOOGLE SEEKS BILLIONS IN DAMAGES

Oracle Corp is seeking damages "in the billions of dollars" from Google Inc in a patent lawsuit over the smartphone market, according to a court filing.

The disclosure on Thursday was the first time either side publicly mentioned the cumulative scale of Oracle's damages claims.

Oracle sued Google last year, claiming the Web search company's Android mobile operating technology infringes Oracle's Java patents. Oracle bought the Java programing language through its acquisition of Sun Microsystems in January 2010.

Some see the lawsuit as a sign of a growing business rivalry between the two companies.

Barring any settlements, a trial between Oracle and Google is expected to begin by November.

MICROSOFT LOSES PATENT INFRINGEMENT CASE, MUST PAY $290 MILLION

We've diligently followed the Microsoft v. i4i Limited Partnership patent dispute as it wound its way through the courts, and now comes the day of reckoning: by a unanimous decision, the US Supreme Court has upheld the patent-infringement finding against Redmond. For those of you just catching up, MS had been taken to court by Toronto-based i4i over a portfolio of XML-related patents, patents it had already offered to license to the software behemoth.

In court, Microsoft claimed it had not infringed and that the patents were invalid; a 2009 Texas court disagreed and awarded $200 million in damages. A subsequent appeal failed. Oh, and the government sided with i4i. Today's Supreme Court verdict upholds the lower courts' decisions: Microsoft Word is an infringing product, and the company now owes $290 million. The finding likely won't affect consumers, as the offending versions of Word are now obsolete. Still, $290 million isn't chump change, even for the world's largest software company.

LODSYS SUING iOS DEVS FOR IN-APP PURCHASING

A handful of iOS developers received letters this week from a patent holding firm claiming that their applications that offer in-app purchases infringe on the firm's intellectual property (IP).

The letter threatens legal action if developers don't license the patent within 21 days. Lodsys, the firm in question, has apparently patented a system that collects usage data and facilitates feedback between a customer and vendor, though it doesn't address financial transactions specifically. The allegedly infringing applications use Apple's in-app purchase tool to encourage users to upgrade to a paid version after downloading a free app.

Though it's possible that Lodsys has sent a similar warning to Apple, only individual developers confirmed receiving the document.

The developers are understandably unwilling to share too many details at this point -- even though Apple developed the framework, developers could still be liable. Lodsys appears to be in the business of launching suits referencing U.S. patent 7,222,078, having gone after Canon, HP, Samsung, and other giants earlier this year. As the developers that have come to light so far are independent, with limited budgets, some have reached out to Apple legal for assistance, and are awaiting response.

CLEARWIRE SUED FOR FALSE ADVERTISING AND THROTTLING

WiMAX network operator Clearwire is the target of a new lawsuit that has been filed out of a Seattle district court. Lawyers representing the plaintiffs allege that Clearwire “throttles down the speed of its Internet service to speeds similar to dial-up telephone modem speeds,” and likens the company’s business practices to “a bandwidth Ponzi scheme.” Customers who are not satisfied with the speeds provided by Clearwire’s self-proclaimed high-speed internet are forced to pay early termination fees.

“Clearwire made materially false, misleading, and/or deceptive representations and omissions about the speed and capacity of its Internet service,” reads the court filing. “Rather than limiting its subscribers to a number that its broadband infrastructure can accommodate — such that Clearwire can make good on its representations regarding high-speed service and capacity — Clearwire signed up many more subscribers than it could handle so as to maximize revenue and profit.” The embattled network operator now faces false advertising claims from fifteen plaintiffs seeking class action status.

JUDGE ORDERS PERSONAL INFO BE BE TURNED OVER IN SONY v. GEOHOT

Remember when Sony sued Geohot and demanded that YouTube hand over the user info of all the folks who posted comments to Geohot's PS3 jailbreak video? Well, score a victory for SCEA, as the judge overseeing the case's jurisdictional discovery process has ruled that Sony can get what it wanted -- information from: Bluehost (who hosts Geohot's website) regarding who downloaded the jailbreak, Twitter regarding any tweets made by Hotz, Google Blogspot regarding comments made on his blog, and the aforementioned YouTube user data.

Keep in mind that Sony's getting this information to show that many of the downloaders and commenters are from Northern California and that Hotz's hacking efforts were aimed at Californians -- meaning the case should remain in the Bay Area instead of moving to New Jersey where Geohot hacked his PS3. With this new information at its disposal, Sony's better equipped to oppose Hotz's motion to dismiss in a hearing early next month, but this doesn't mean the company will succeed in its bid to keep the litigation a West Coast affair.

VERIZON SUES FCC OVER NET NEUTRALITY RULES

The New York Times reports Verizon is suing the FCC to block the newly crafted order for net neutrality. Verizon is arguing that the F.C.C. exceeded its authority, and violated the company’s constitutional rights. Verizon filed its suit in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, the same court that in April ruled that the F.C.C. had overstepped itself when it sanctioned Comcast in 2008 for blocking users of its broadband Internet service from BitTorrent, a file-sharing application.

The challenge, which was widely expected to come from at least one of the big Internet service providers, sets up what is likely to be a lengthy legal battle over the rights of broadband companies to run their networks without government interference.

“We are deeply concerned by the F.C.C.’s assertion of broad authority for sweeping new regulation of broadband networks and the Internet itself,” Michael E. Glover, a senior vice president and deputy general counsel for Verizon, said in a statement.

“We believe this assertion of authority goes well beyond any authority provided by Congress, and creates uncertainty for the communications industry, innovators, investors and consumers,” Mr. Glover added.

The F.C.C. declined to comment on the appeal. But a senior commission official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the agency was confident its order was legally sound and said the commission would most likely challenge Verizon’s appeal on grounds that the lawsuit itself violated F.C.C. rules. Those require that once a new order is published in the Federal Register, which in this case has not yet occurred, any challenge filed within 10 days is entered into a lottery to determine the legal venue.