Select a region
A Jersey inventor who claims that tech giant Apple stole his online payment technology to create iTunes has been knocked back in his bid to sue the United States Patent and Trademark Office over its refusal to disclose documents.
Jersey-born Patrick Racz claims that the Apple owes him $18bn for the technology behind the App Store and iTunes – which he says he invented in the late 1990s.
In 2015, Mr Racz and his company Smartflash LLC won $533 million in compensation for patent infringement by Apple over a number of patents which covered the technology that powers iTunes, and the way that customers can buy and download music.
However, his multi-million damages victory was then thrown out two years later after the US Patent and Trademark Office officially dubbed his patents "invalid", and the Court of Appeals dismissed the verdict altogether in March 2017.
In 2018, the US Supreme Court said that they would not be prepared to listen to a further challenge by Smartflash, and the Court of Appeals upheld the Patent Office’s conclusions. This suggested that Mr Racz's hard-fought battle against Apple had finally come to an end.
Pictured: Mr Racz claims that Apple's iTunes store takes advantage of the technology he first developed in the late 1990s.
However, Mr Racz resumed legal proceedings armed with evidence gleaned from freedom-of-information requests and with $50m of private-investor backing.
In April, he announced the launch of a civil investigation into the global giant, under the US federal ‘Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act’ law.
As part of that, Mr Racz is suing the United States Patent and Trademark Office over its refusal to release documents regarding his racketeering case against Apple.
He is attempting to prove that panels of judges were intentionally stacked with ex-lawyers and close supporters of Apple.
However, the Patent Office has said it shouldn't have to turn over the documents – claiming that doing so would harm its ability to respond to public information requests.
Last week, the Patent Office filed a reply brief backing its bid for summary judgment in the Smartflash case.
A summary judgment is a judgment entered by a court for one party and against another party without a full trial.
But Smartflash previously said it "has shown that there are issues of material fact" that would bar the Patent Office from getting summary judgment at this stage of the case.
Smartflash said it wants "to uncover why it was treated differently than other patent owners".
According to court records, the company is claiming that the documents it got from the office in response to its Freedom of Information Act requests omitted too much information to provide clarity.
Smartflash said that the emails were improperly redacted and that it was treated differently from other patent owners, according to court records.
In response, the Patent Office argued that the documents deal with its deliberative process, and if employees "were not able to freely discuss their impressions, opinions, and recommendations about how to process FOIA requests, responding to FOIA requests would become nearly impossible".
It continued: "Expression of candid impressions and opinions helps to ensure that USPTO's disclosure determinations are correct and legally defensible, which provides a great benefit to the public."
Jersey inventor's $18bn legal battle with Apple could hit screens (January 2024)
Jersey inventor sues US Patent Office in iTunes copyright row (November 2023)
Jersey inventor launches fresh £18bn legal challenge against Apple (April 2023)
Jersey inventor loses $533 million damages after battle with Apple (March 2017)
Jersey inventor may never see $533m Apple damages award (January 2017)
Comments
Comments on this story express the views of the commentator only, not Bailiwick Publishing. We are unable to guarantee the accuracy of any of those comments.