In response to Monec’s allegations that Apple’s well-known iPhone® infringes U.S. Patent No. 6,335,678 (“’678 patent”), Apple reciprocated by filing an Answer and Counterclaim of non-infringement and invalidity on May 11, 2009, in the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division. (Monec Holding AG v. Apple Inc., No. 1:09-CV-312 (filed on March 23, 2009)).
Apple alleges that the iPhone® does not infringe the claims of the ‘678 patent since the iPhone® does not have a “display” that “has dimension such that one page of a book can be displayed at normal size,” a limitation which is found in all of the claims of the ‘678 patent. In support of its argument, Apple cited to the specification of the '678 patent and various representations made by the patentee during prosecution of the ‘678 patent regarding the size of the “display.”
Specifically, Apple alleges that the “display” term should be defined based on the patentee’s failure to dispute the Examiner’s assertions that the cited prior art disclosed a “display” and the submission of brochures to the Examiner showing an example of an electronic device depicting technical features and advantages of the claimed invention.
Apple also responded to Monec’s allegations of “unfair trade practices, monopolization and tortious interference with prospective business advantage” by stating that "Monec appears to have copied these claims mistakenly from a prior complaint against Hewlett-Packard Co. in this District” as none of the facts alleged in Monec’s Complaint supported or mentioned those claims.
Apple also generally alleges that the claims of the ‘678 patent are invalid. The case has been assigned to Judge Leonie M. Brinkema and Magistrate Judge John F. Anderson.